250613.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 13, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 118
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Allen Says
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Ayers Says
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Little Says
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Manring Says
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Shavers Says
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Spangler Says
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Woitowitz Says
3M COMPANY: Norton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Osbun Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Richardson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Richardson-Jordan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Shelby Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
55 STONE REST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Liz Suit Claims
7 CUPS OF TEA: Uses Professionals' Info Without Consent, Harb Says
ABM AVIATION: McGee Suit Removed from State Court to D. Colo.
ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jordan Says
ALERA GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Imbrogno Says
APPLE INC: Faces Robinson Suit Over Deceptive iPhone 16 Marketing
ASAPP INC: Eavesdrops Customers' Conversation, Milton Alleges
ATI HOLDINGS: Downey ERISA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BADIA SPICES: Faces Kolker Suit Over Mislabeled Ground Ginger
BRADLEY, IL: Neufeld FLSA Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
CASNER & EDWARDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Frawley Says
CASNER & EDWARDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glavin Says
CENCORA, INC: Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case
CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rogers Suit Says
CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Gillespie Suit Over Insurance Plan Coverage
COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gonzalez Says
COLLETTE HOME: Face Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COMMUNICATIONS DATA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pierce Says
COMMUNITY COUNSELING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fequiere Says
COSTAR GROUP: Drummer Files Suit in C.D. California
CSX TRANS: Must Defend Against Retaliatory Termination Claims
CVS HEALTH: Getz Data Breach Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
DAVE INC: Faces Harris Class Action Suit Over High-Cost Loans
DEBUT BIOTECHNOLOGY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DELTA AIR LINES: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
DERMATOLOGISTS OF BIRMINGHAM: Attorneys Investigate Data Breach
DIALPAD INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over AI Analytics
DIAMOND FOODS: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Miller Class Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge
DPS INC: Harris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
DRAFTKINGS INC: Moore Sues Over Illegal Gambling Apps & Websites
EBIE CORP: Chitic Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
EL CONCILIO CALIFORNIA: Khen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ENTERTAINMENT EARTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Says
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Rieger Class Action Suit Over Kickback Scheme
FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
FIVE BELOW: Rodriguez Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Mass.
FLAVORS LLC: Pitterson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Culinary Advisors
FORTREA HOLDINGS: Faces Deslande Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
FRANKIE SHOP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
FTX TRADING: Denies Clients' KYC System Access, Mahler Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Burkett Sues Over Material Safety Defect
GENESCO INC: Edwards Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Text Messages
GERBER PRODUCTS: Settles Infant Formula Class Action Lawsuit
GIANT EAGLE: Agrees to Settle Retirement Plan Suit for $668,750
GOODRX INC: Controls Prices Paid to Pharmacies, OneroRx Suit Says
HARD EIGHT: Ade Sues Over Deceptive Supplements' Labeling
HARMONY LEADS: Faces Rhinehart Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
HATTERAS FUNDS: Miley Suit Removed to D. Delaware
HEALTHY MEALS: Face Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HERITAGE COMPANIES: Izelo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HR MANAGEMENT: Lin Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
ITA KITCHEN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fernandez Alleges
J. GREENE: Barry Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
J. GREENE: Diarra Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Breedlove Sues Over Data Breach
JBR INC: Girtley Class Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JENNIFER MILLER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says
JONES LANG LASALLE: Villa Suit Removed to N.D. California
KEN SHERMAN: Xiong Files Suit in D. Guam
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Schaeffler Says
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Mandley Sues Over Failure Safeguard PII
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Rogers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH: Court Okays Settlement in Janetis OT Pay Case
LIMESTONE UNIVERSITY: Former Employee Alleges Layoff Without Notice
LIZZY'S FRESH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Claims
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Casillas Suit Removed to E.D. California
MANTA PC: Wilson Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Conerly Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MEYER BURGER: Gilbert Seeks to Recover 60 Days' Wages & Benefits
MINT MOBILE: Fliegelman Suit Removed to E.D. California
MONAHAN PRODUCTS: Faces Mossazadeh Suit Over Defective Car Seats
NATIONAL BATH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Malaterre Alleges
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge OKs Athletes' Pay Class Settlement
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Discloses Private Info, Beltran et al. Allege
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Meekins Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Welsh Files Suit in Ga. Super Ct.
NEW EDITION: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Lytwyn Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEW YORK: Faces Daugherty Suit Over Unfair Employment Termination
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Plumlee Suit Removed to E.D. California
OAKLAND COUNTY: Fails to Pay Employees' Overtime, Mance Suit Says
ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Devers Sues Over Data Security Incident
ONTRAK INC: Jones Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
PAKT INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges
PEPSICO INC: Faces Reyes Suit Over Popcorners' Slack-Fill Packaging
PHOENIX INVESTMENT: Building Property Violates ADA, Cheli Alleges
PLASTIC SURGERY: Thompson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Angulo Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Dwyer Suit Transferred to S.D. California
PREMIUM VELOCITY: Lumley Seeks General Managers' Unpaid Overtime
QAHWAH HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
QUALITY FOOD: Meza Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
RB GLOBAL: Enterprise Lodging Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
RDA WIRELESS: Hladis Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
REGENTS OF UC: Tang Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ROYAL BANK: Faces Moeller Suit Over Unlawful Cash Sweep Programs
RUBBISH REMOVAL: Hawkins Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
RUFFOLO & HOOPER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ochoa Says
SCHAEFFLER GROUP: Italiano Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
SECURITY SERVICES: Mossiah Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice
SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Attorneys Investigate 2025 Data Breach
SOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY: Sherman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOUTHERN COLORADO: Sena Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
STARFACE WORLD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, DelaCruz Alleges
SULLIVAN AUTOMOTIVE: Sales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUMMUS MEDICAL LASER: Flowers Mill Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Dexilant Conspiracy
TECO ENERGY: Court Dismisses Roche's Amended ERISA Suit
TEMPUS AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
TENCENT AMERICA: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
THOMAS GUASTELLO: Hotel Non-Compliant With ADA, Foster Alleges
TOYOTA MOTOR: Malainy Sues Over Tacoma Vehicles' Brake Defects
UB RENTAL: Seerag Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Gutierrez Challenges Civil Immigration Detention
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Handelsman Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
UNIVERSAL TEA: Bodily Suit Removed to E.D. California
US BANK TRUST: Bates Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Conduct
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Hall Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
VAGARO INC: Schwartz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
VIAGOGO INC: Berlinger et al. Sue Over Deceptive Ticket Pricing
VINCERO INC: Cole Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
WASTE MANAGEMENT: FCRA Class Complaint Dismissed Without Leave
WEBER MARKING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Janisse Says
WESTERN FLYER: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Hudgins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WORKSTEPS INC: Court Orders Defendant to Pay Fees in Remand Case
YADAV ENTERPRISES: Haddad Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
YOKE GLOBAL INC: Newell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
ZIER INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
ZUFFA LLC: Faces Cirkunovs Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $4.3MM Net Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessy Held 15% Responsible in $18MM Verdict
*********
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Allen Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE ALLEN, et al. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04011-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 13, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Plaintiffs include MELODY ALLEN; JAMEL BARNWELL; CEDRIC BONIER;
MICHAEL R. BOWEN; MARTHA BOWEN; WILLIE J.BROOKS; ANGELA BROOKS;
HENRY J. CERIL SR.; HELEN CERIL; JAMES FLANAGAN; CARMELA FLANAGAN;
STEVEN HAMBLET; MICHELLE HERMAN; CURTIS HUDSON, RONALD HYATT;
COLLEEN HYATT; CHAVALIER JENKINS; JOHN LEWIS JR.; JANET LEWIS;
STANLEY MONTNEY; RICHARD NICHOLS; JEANNINE NICHOLS; JOHN POWNELL;
ANGEL POWNELL; CHARLES G. ROLLINS JR.; SHEILA ROLLINS; RACHEL
SCHAFFTER; WILLIAM SIMPSON; ERIC SWIGGUM; TERRY VAUGHN; FREDERICK
WOODLEY; SANDRA WOODLEY; RAYMOND YOUNG; RHONDA YOUNG; and NICHOLAS
ZUNIGA.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave,
Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Ayers Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY AYERS, et al. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04012-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 13, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiffs contend that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiffs were diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Plaintiffs include TERRY BALTHROP, DONALD BARNES, TIMOTHY
BOSWELL, RUTH BOSWELL, RICHARD L. CRUIKSHANK, CHARLES E. DANNER,
PATRICIA DANNER, JOHN M. EDWARDS, JASON ENGLAND, JUDGE RICHARD
GERGEL STANLEY GRAY, SHARON GRAY, EDDIE A. GUESS, CAROLYN D. GUESS,
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND JASON KERNER, DENISE KERNER, RILEY
LAWSON, BENJAMIN LEYDEN, JOSE LOPEZ, JESSICA LOPEZ, ROBERT J.
MALONE II, FREDRICK B. MASSEY, JOSEPH MILOSEVICH, JEFFERY S.
NEWBOLD, DAVID S. PLATZER, DALE H. PLUMMER, THOMAS RICHARDSON,
WILLIAM C. SHANKS, MICHAEL SMITH, PATRICK S. SPAUGY, RONNIE
VANOVER, and DEBORAH S. VANOVER.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave,
Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Little Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Little v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03678-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 1, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Telephone: (540) 672-4224
E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Manring Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Manring v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03679-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 1, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Telephone: (540) 672-4224
E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Shavers Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Shavers v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03682-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 1, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Telephone: (540) 672-4224
E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Spangler Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Spangler v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03683-RMG
(D.S.C., May 1, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Telephone: (540) 672-4224
E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Woitowitz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Woitowitz v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03687-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 1, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Telephone: (540) 672-4224
E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Norton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Norton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-03636-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages
stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed
with Testicular Cancer, and High Cholesterol as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq.
MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP
101 West Elm St., Suite 520
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (803) 315-3357
Fax: (610) 941-9880
Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com
3M COMPANY: Osbun Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rickie Osbun, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:25-cv-03621-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that
contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no
Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or
innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans
exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods
of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known,
that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic
chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting
and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and
PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Phone: 540-672-4224
Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Richardson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Richardson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:25-cv-03622-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that
contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no
Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or
innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans
exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods
of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known,
that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic
chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting
and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and
PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Phone: 540-672-4224
Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Richardson-Jordan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selena Richardson-Jordan, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT,
INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS
FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin
interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC
FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.);
VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC
SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03612-RMG (D.S.C., April 30,
2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed
with Thyroid Disease and High Cholesterol as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq.
MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP
101 West Elm St., Suite 520
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (803) 315-3357
Fax: (610) 941-9880
Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com
3M COMPANY: Shelby Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrett Shelby, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:25-cv-03626-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that
contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no
Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or
innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans
exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods
of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known,
that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic
chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting
and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and
PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with
ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
product.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Phone: 540-672-4224
Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
55 STONE REST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Liz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 55 Stone Rest., Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-04361 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025) arises from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
Maddogandbeans.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website contains significant
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Moreover, the
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website violates
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, says the suit.
The 55 Stone Rest, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers
consumers the ability to explore menus featuring Mexican dishes and
beverages, as well as services such as table reservations, event
inquiries, and online ordering. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
7 CUPS OF TEA: Uses Professionals' Info Without Consent, Harb Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN HARB, MICHELLE RAYFIELD, and CAROLYN BALL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 7 CUPS OF
TEA, CO., d/b/a/ 7 CUPS, a Delaware corporation; GLEN MORIARTY, and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04927 (C.D. Cal., May 30,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Lanham Act, California Business and Professions Code, and
California Civil Code.
The case arises from the Defendants' use of the names and
background information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
licensed professionals in connection with the advertising of their
services without prior consent. Although the Defendants' website
provides the impression that the Plaintiffs and putative class and
sub-class members listed on 7 Cups' website are/were, in fact,
available for services on behalf of the Defendants, they were not.
The Defendants had never notified the Plaintiffs or putative class
and sub-class members of the advertising of their services on the
Defendants' website and had no intention to use them for any work,
nor even provided any leads to them unless they paid a fee to the
Defendants. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the
Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages.
7 Cups of Tea, Co., doing business as 7 Cups, is a mental health
services provider, with offices and principal place of business in
Santa Clara County, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerome H. Mooney, Esq.
Rebekah F. Frushtick, Esq.
G. Randall Garrou, Esq.
WESTON, GARROU & MOONEY
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 442-0072
Facsimile: (310) 442-0899
Email: jerrym@mooneylaw.com
rff@wgdlaw.com
randygarrou@wgdlaw.com
ABM AVIATION: McGee Suit Removed from State Court to D. Colo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action suit captioned as REGINALD LAVON MCGEE JR.,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. ABM
AVIATION, INC., Case No. 2025CV31467 (Filed April 23, 2025) was
removed from Denver County District Court, State of Colorado, to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
May 29, 2025.
The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-01691-TPO to the proceedings.
The Plaintiff alleges ABM failed to provide Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees all required 10-minute breaks to which they
were entitled under the COMPS Orders and failed to pay Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees for those missed breaks.
ABM AVIATION, INC. s a subsidiary of ABM Industries. It provides a
range of services for the aviation industry, including cargo
handling, cleaning, ground transportation, passenger services, ramp
handling, security, and outsourced business solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Telephone: (970) 214-0562
BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
- and -
Alexander Hood, Esq.
HOOD LAW OFFICE, PLLC
1312 Seventeenth Street # 1028
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (720) 381-4142
E-mail: Alex@HoodLawPLLC.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
Lukasz Gilewski, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 629-6200
Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
E-mail: jharpole@littler.com
lgilewski@littler.com
ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jordan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ABSOLUTE DENTAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00986 (D.
Nev., June 4, 2025) alleges that ADG failed to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated ADG
patients' personally identifiable information and protected health
information, from criminal hackers, including at least some of the
following information, among other sensitive information: names,
dates of birth, health information, dental information and records,
doctor's name, health and/or dental insurance information, medical
billing or claims information, prescription or medication
information, Social Security numbers, and treatment information.
On May 2, 2025, ADG filed a notice with the United States
Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights,
disclosing a data breach impacting ADG's network servers (the Data
Breach).
According to the complaint, little detail is available concerning
the Data Breach and ADG has failed to disclose critical information
about its investigation, post-breach containment, and remediation
efforts that would enable breach victims to take necessary steps to
protect themselves against the harms caused by the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and remain at an
imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering,
ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and
other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the Data Breach, the suit alleges.
ADG is a Nevada-based dental care provider that serves many
thousands of patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Haines, Esq.
Gerardo Avalos, Esq.
FREEDOM LAW FIRM
8985 S. Eastern Avenue Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Telephone: (702) 880-5554
Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
E-mail: info@freedomlegalteam.com
ALERA GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Imbrogno Says
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL IMBROGNO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALERA GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06010 (N.D. Ill.,
May 29, 2025) is a class action arises from a recent cyberattack
discovered by the Defendant on April 28, 2025, resulting in a data
breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody
and/or control of Defendant (the Data Breach).
The Breach occurred between July 19, 2024, and August 4, 2024, but
was not discovered by the Defendant until April 28, 2025, an
appalling 284 days later.
The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration,
and theft of current and former employees' highly personal
information, including names, birth dates, Social Security Numbers,
addresses, demographic information, driver's license, financial
accounts or credit card information, passport number, insurance
information, biometric information, username and login information,
and medical information.
On May 21, 2025 -- a month after the Data Breach was discovered --
Alera finally began notifying Plaintiff and the Class of the Breach
through breach notices.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking
injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be
based on information in Defendant's possession.
Alera provides risk management, insurance and financial services.
With offices across the country, Alera touts an annual revenue of
1.5 billion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
APPLE INC: Faces Robinson Suit Over Deceptive iPhone 16 Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIERRA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04776 (N.D. Cal., June 5,
2025) is a class action suit regarding Apple's false and deceptive
marketing practices in violation of numerous false advertising and
consumer protection laws.
Accordingly, Apple misled millions of consumers into buying new
phones they didn't need by promoting non-existent features. In
September 2024, Apple released and began selling its iPhone 16 cell
phone. Apple promotes this product as the first phone built with
Apple Intelligence.
Apple launched an extensive, multi-platform marketing campaign for
the iPhone 16, heavily promoting its new "Apple Intelligence" AI
features -- especially enhanced Siri capabilities -- as
revolutionary. Apple positioned these AI tools as the defining
feature of the device, leading consumers to reasonably expect that
these innovations would be available at the time of release.
Apple's marketing generated unprecedented consumer excitement,
helping justify premium pricing and positioning the company as a
leader in the AI race. However, Apple knew these promoted AI
features -- especially the Siri enhancements -- were not real, and
only recently admitted they were never available, following
backlash and industry scrutiny. In 2024, Apple shipped 226 million
phones worldwide.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of California, residing in the city of
Los Angeles, in Los Angeles County, California. On Dec. 2024, the
Plaintiff purchased an iPhone 16 from an Apple Store located in
Portland, Oregon.
Apple is a technology company and manufacturer of smart cell
phones, tablets, computers and other technology products. In
addition to offering physical product for sale, Apple is a
developer of artificial intelligence platforms. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Bohren, Esq.
YANNI LAW APC
145 South Spring Street, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (619) 433-2803
E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimiles: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulin.willey.com
ASAPP INC: Eavesdrops Customers' Conversation, Milton Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Milton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASAPP, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04677 (S.D.N.Y., June 4,
2025) alleges that JetBlue has aided, agreed with, employed, and/or
permitted ASAPP to monitor, read, record, learn the contents of, or
otherwise intercept the conversations of their current and
prospective consumers without their consent.
The consumers include individuals who call JetBlue (i.e., their
customer service line) from within the State of California to,
among other things, retrieve information, schedule service
appointments, make changes to subscriptions, and receive additional
forms of customer support. Unbeknownst to the consumers, when they
contact and speak with businesses such as JetBlue, ASAPP eavesdrops
and records these conversations to which it is not a party.
ASAPP developed and operates a conversation intelligence
software-as-a-service (SaaS) that it sells to, and partners with,
third-party businesses (such as JetBlue) so that those businesses
can "analyze conversations as they happen and provides precise,
real-time recommendations and prompts" to agents "during each
conversation."
To accomplish this, ASAPP employs proprietary software that
eavesdrops on a customer's call, transcribes it using natural
language processing (NLP), and feeds the information into its
artificial intelligence (AI) to read the text, identify patterns,
and classify the data. The result is that JetBlue consumers'
telephone conversations are surreptitiously transmitted to ASAPP's
servers, where it is processed and analyzed using ASAPP's AI and
NLP, and thereafter presented to ASAPP’s clients in dashboards,
searchable transcripts, and reports, says the suit.
ASAPP's conversation intelligence SaaS includes several service,
including, inter alia, AutoTranscribe, AutoSummary, and
AutoAssist.
The Plaintiff resides in Los Angeles, California, intends to remain
there, and is, therefore, a citizen of California. Mr. Milton was
in California when he called JetBlue within the last 12 months from
the filing of the Complaint.
ASAPP is a leader in AI conversation analytics, describing itself
as "the AI cloud company for contact centers." To accomplish this,
Defendant uses "generative AI" platform services that have been
trained on "millions or billions of related customer data points"
enabling the company's software to identify patterns and trends
within high-volume customer call centers.
AutoTranscribe is "an AI service that provides the market's most
accurate, real-time, speech-to-text transcription service."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC.
140 Broadway, Fl. 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
E-Mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
- and -
Joeseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
ATI HOLDINGS: Downey ERISA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled SUZANNE DOWNEY, on behalf of Plaintiff and
the class members, Plaintiff, v. ATI HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business
as ATI Physical Therapy; and CHEROKEE FUNDING II, LLC, doing
business as Gain Servicing, Defendants, Case No. 2025-CH-02031, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County
Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on May 23, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-05785 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.
ATI Holdings, LLC provides outpatient rehabilitation and adjacent
healthcare services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60603-1841
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
Dedelman@edcombs.com
Jclark@edcombs.com
- and -
Joseph D. Kern, Esq.
John P. Ryan, Esq.
Peter Pederson, Esq.
Liam A. McGing, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
151 N. Franklin St., Ste. 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: jryan@hinshawlaw.com
ppederson@hinshawlaw.com
jkern@hinshawlaw.com
lmcging@hinshawlaw.com
BADIA SPICES: Faces Kolker Suit Over Mislabeled Ground Ginger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enya Kolker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Badia Spices, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03099 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 4, 2025) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business
practices of Badia with respect to the manufacturing, marketing,
and sale of the Defendant's Badia Ground Ginger and Badia Ground
Cinnamon products throughout the state of New York and throughout
the country.
The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled
and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff,
by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that
the Products are contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, which is
a powerful neurotoxin that is known to cause cognitive deficits,
mental illness, dementia, and hypertension, asserts the suit.
The Products' contamination is particularly egregious given the
potentially severe and irreversible consequences of lead
consumption. The Defendant specifically lists the ingredients in
the Products on the labeling; however, Defendant fails to disclose
that the Products contain, or are at the risk of containing, lead,
the suit added.
The Plaintiff purchased and used Defendant’s Products that
contained lead, including Products that were subject to the
warning. More specifically, the Plaintiff purchased the Products
numerous times throughout the class period from retail brick and
mortar stores including Food Universe in Bronx, New York for an
approximate retail price of $11.09.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes
the Products throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
BRADLEY, IL: Neufeld FLSA Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jeremy Neufeld, John Bush, Landon Despot,
Audis Edwards, Chad Elder, Gracie Hir, Kayla Karraker, Daniel
Meier, Lucas Schejbal, Tyler Smaga, Katelyn Surane, Drew Walters,
and all others similarly situated v. Village of Bradley, Case No.
1:25-cv-04685 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois on May 30, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02158-CSB-EIL to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Bradley -- https://bradleyil.org/ -- is a village in Kankakee
County, Illinois, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Pierce, Esq.
Alex Behn, Esq.
ASHER, GITTLER & D'ALBA, LTD.
200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 263-1500
Email: mjp@ulaw.com
ajb@ulaw.com
CASNER & EDWARDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Frawley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FRAWLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CASNER & EDWARDS LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-11572-LTS (D.
Mass., May 30, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally
identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that
Defendant publicly disclosed on May 20, 2025.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was
entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and
transfer that information.
The Defendant is a Boston-based law firm that represents
businesses, individuals, and institutions across New England and
around the world.
The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and
common law duties and obligations, including those based on its
affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep
their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected
from unauthorized disclosure or access.
On April 10, 2024, the Defendant became aware of suspicious and
unauthorized activity on its computer network initiated by an
unauthorized third-party.
In response, the Defendant launched an investigation with the
assistance of third-party specialists into the nature and scope of
the incident.
Through that investigation, the Defendant determined that an
unknown actor gained access to certain parts of its network between
March 21 and March 23, 2024, and may have accessed or acquired
certain files while on its network.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Wellesley Hills,
Massachusetts.
The Defendant is a Boston-based law firm that represents
businesses, individuals, and institutions across New England and
around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casondra Turner, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (771) 772-3086
E-mail: cturner@milberg.com
CASNER & EDWARDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glavin Says
------------------------------------------------------------
AMY GLAVIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. CASNER & EDWARDS, LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-11590 (D. Mass., June 2,
2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and
former clients and opposing clients. But, between March 21 and
March 23, 2024, the Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. She brings this class action
on behalf of herself, and all others harmed by Defendant's
misconduct.
The Defendant is a Massachusetts-based law firm that offers legal
services across a variety of practice areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Appel, Esq.
KETTERER, BROWNE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
336 S. Main Street
Bel Air, Maryland 21014
Telephone: (617) 359-4981
E-mail: Michael@KBAattorneys.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
CENCORA, INC: Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case
------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California denied
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as MIREYA MARTINEZ,
v. CENCORA, INC. ET AL. Case No. 5:24-cv-02663-MRA-SHK (C.D. Cal.).
The case remains in federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA) jurisdiction.
This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Mireya
Martinez against pharmaceutical companies Cencora, Inc.,
Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, Amerisourcebergen Services
Corporation, Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, LLC, and Does 1-50.
The plaintiff began working for the Defendants in February 2022 as
a Warehouse Associate. Plaintiff alleges that from the time she
began working for Defendants until the time she initiated this
lawsuit, Defendants regularly failed to comply with state labor
laws.
The proposed class is defined as all current and former non-exempt
employees of any of the Defendants within the State of California
at any time commencing four years preceding the filing of
Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the
certified class action is provided to the class. Because Plaintiff
filed her original complaint on October 7, 2024, the class period
extends from October 7, 2020, to October 7, 2024.
On behalf of a putative class, Plaintiff alleges these claims for
relief:
* Failure to pay adequate overtime wages in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198.
* Failure to provide adequate meal and rest breaks in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a).
* Failure to provide adequate rest periods in violation of
California Labor Code Section 226.7.
* Failure to provide minimum wages in violation of California
Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, 1197.1.
* Failure to pay wages to workers who quit or are terminated
within an appropriate time period in violation of California Labor
Code Sections 201, 202, 203.
* Failure to pay all current employees' wages within an
appropriate time period in violation of California Labor Code
Sections 204 and 210.
* Failure to provide employees with accurate wage statements
in violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a).
* For restitution of wages, attorneys' fees, and costs under
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.
* As a private attorney general for all labor code violations
on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated under
California Labor Code Section 2699 et seq.
Defendants removed the case to federal court on December 18, 2024,
arguing that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case under
CAFA. On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff moved to remand the action
back to state court, arguing that Defendants had not established
the case met CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement. The motion
was opposed by the Defendants.
Plaintiff argued that Defendants' estimated amount in controversy
of $12 million was unsupported by evidence. Plaintiff noted that
although Defendants, as the employers, had access to employment
records containing relevant facts, they did not provide those
documents to the Court or ground their calculations in those facts.
Plaintiff characterized Defendants' calculations as entirely
speculative, inflated, and self-serving, concluding that Defendants
failed to meet their burden of showing that CAFA's jurisdictional
threshold was satisfied, thus requiring remand.
The Court noted that federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, and removal of a state action to federal court is
proper only if the district court would have had original
jurisdiction over the action. CAFA provides federal district courts
with original jurisdiction to hear a class action if the class has
more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the
matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. It was undisputed that
the parties were minimally diverse and that the class contained
over 100 members. Plaintiff's sole basis for remand was that
Defendants had not adequately established that the amount in
controversy exceeded $5 million.
Upon examination of the First Amended Complaint, the Court found
that Plaintiff did not allege specific, numeric amounts in expected
costs or damages that could be totaled to calculate the approximate
amount in controversy. Plaintiff instead requested general relief
under the applicable statutes without attaching estimated dollar
amounts to these requests.
A. Meal Break Violations: Defendants estimated 258,273 shifts
covered by the code section with an average pay of $21.29 per hour,
assuming a 40% violation rate based on the First Amended
Complaint's language that class members were regularly and
routinely deprived of meal breaks. This resulted in a calculation
of $2,199,448.60 in controversy. The Court found this calculation
reasonably supported, noting that Defendants consulted their
records for the number of shifts and average wage.
B. Rest Break Violations: Defendants calculated the amount
using 268,138 shifts with the same average pay of $21.29 per hour
and a 40% violation rate, resulting in $2,283,458.90. The Court
found this method reasonable.
C. Minimum Wage Claims: Defendants estimated approximately
268,138 shifts with a minimum wage of $13.00 per hour, assuming at
least 5 minutes of off-the-clock work per shift, equating to
approximately 22,345 hours of off-the-clock work. This resulted in
$580,970, including liquidated damages. The Court found the
estimate reasonable, noting that five minutes per shift was not
wildly exaggerated for off-the-clock work.
D. Waiting Time Penalties: Defendants determined that
approximately 417 eligible employees left their employment during
the relevant three-year period, with an average wage of $19.29 per
hour, resulting in $1,930,543.20. The Court found this calculation
reasonable, noting that a single violation is enough to trigger
penalties, making a 100% violation rate plausible.
E. Attorneys' Fees: Defendants estimated attorneys' fees as
approximately 25% of the total relief awarded. Plaintiff did not
meaningfully dispute this figure. The Court found this estimate
reasonable.
Upon review, the Court concluded that Defendants sufficiently
established that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.
Defendants provided a chart showing that the amount in controversy
for seven of Plaintiff's nine claims totaled $12,141,588.45. The
Court noted that even if meal period premiums and rest period
premiums were reduced by half and attorneys' fees were subsequently
reduced, the amount in controversy would still clear the
jurisdictional bar at $9,339,771.22. The Court concluded that
Defendants applied a methodical and reasonable approach to
calculating an estimated amount in controversy, addressing only
seven of the nine claims, which left some cushion in their
calculations.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RLmPZx from PacerMonitor.com.
CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rogers Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CERNER CORPORATION, D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and
UNION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00402-BCW (W.D. Mo.,
May 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure
and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information of
roughly 260,000 individuals, including, but not limited to: names,
dates of birth, and Social Security Numbers.
On April 21, 2025, the Defendants mailed Plaintiff a letter
advising her that the Private Information compromised in the Data
Breach included certain personal or protected health information of
hers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members provided
their Private Information to Defendants as a condition of receiving
healthcare treatment. Defendants stored Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' Private Information on their computer systems and servers.
Unfortunately, the Defendants failed to take adequate measures to
protect its current and former patients' Private Information stored
on its computer servers, including failing to implement reasonable
cybersecurity safeguards or policies to protect Private
Information, and failing to supervise its information technology or
data security agents and employees, or vendors, to prevent, detect,
and stop breaches of its systems, says the suit.
Plaintiff Rogers is a resident and citizen of Terre Haute, Indiana.
Oracle is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company
offering electronic health record (EHR) and business operations
systems to hospitals and healthcare organization.
Union Health is a health care provider in Indiana and Oracle is a
third-party electronic health records vendor that provides data
migration services to Union Health.
Union Health provided Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information to Defendant Oracle in connection with receiving legal
service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
St Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Gillespie Suit Over Insurance Plan Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK GILLESPIE, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00288-NT (D. Maine, June 2, 2025) arises
in part under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is an enrollee in a Cigna Health and
Life Insurance Company Plan. Gillespie enrolled with Cigna through
his employer, Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.
He has an acquired limb loss due to a major amputation below the
knee on his right leg and above the knee on his left leg. He
requires a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for his left
leg and related services as prescribed by his licensed health
provider. Gillespie, however, cannot obtain coverage for this
needed medical device because Cigna's Plan excludes all coverage
for his micro-processor knee because of Cigna's exclusion of
microprocessor-controlled prostheses. This is illegal
discrimination, asserts the suit.
In a landmark decision against a different health insurer, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Affordable Care Act
prescribed a paradigm shift in the health insurance industry
Cigna designs and administers health plans, whether insured or
self-funded, that exclude all coverage for microprocessor
controlled prostheses, including the microprocessor knee required
by Gillespie.
The Plaintiff is an adult with an acquired limb loss due to a major
amputation below the knee on his right leg and above the knee on
his left leg and is diagnosed with ambulatory dysfunction. He
resides in Steep Falls, Maine. Gillespie is enrolled in a
self-insured health plan issued by Cigna Health and Life Insurance
Company as a result of his employment.
Gillespie requires a microprocessor controlled prosthetic left knee
to treat his limb loss resulting from bilateral amputations, below
the knee on his right leg and above the knee on his left leg.
Health is a health insurance company and third-party administrator
that is headquartered in Connecticut and is engaged in the business
of insurance and other business in the state of Maine.
There are approximately 2.3 million people living with limb loss or
absence in the United States. Approximately 185,000 amputations
occur in the United States each year, about 500 a day.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew S. Davis, Esq.
DAVIS LAW LLC
PO Box 17887
Portland, ME 04112
Telephone: (207) 367-3905
E-mail: andrew@erisabenefitlawyer.com
- and -
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Daniel S. Gross, Esq.
Ari Robbins Greene, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
dgross@sylaw.com
arobbinsgreene@sylaw.com
- and -
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Elizabeth Binczik, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (877) 344-4628
E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
ebinczik@nka.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gonzalez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., and COINBASE INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-04689 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendants
failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information of over 69,000 customers, including, but not limited
to: Name, address, phone, and email; Social Security; bank account
numbers and some bank account identifiers; Government ID images;
and account data.
The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to
implement an information security program designed to ensure the
security and confidentiality of customer information.
The Defendants provide platforms that manage the operational
complexity, security, and scale of cryptocurrency trading for
investors. The Defendants allow users to buy, sell, and trade
cryptocurrencies and requires users to provide their personal
information in connection with the transaction.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former users of
Defendants' various services and products.
Accordingly, the Defendants promised to use reasonable technical,
administrative, and physical safeguards to protect the PII they
collected. These promises were contained in the applicable privacy
policy and through other disclosures in compliance with statutory
requirements.
The Plaintiff and Class Members, as customers of Defendants, relied
on these representations and on these sophisticated business
entities to keep their PII confidential, securely maintained, and
to make only authorized disclosures of this information, asserts
the suit.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Houston, Harris County,
Texas. He is a user of the Coinbase cryptocurrency exchange
platform.
Coinbase is a Delaware corporation that operates as a remote-first
company and does not have a physical headquarters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Poulin, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
COLLETTE HOME: Face Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COLLETTE HOME, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03014 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website
www.colletteconsignment.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times,
most recently on March 31, 2025, to access the Defendant's Website
from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's
products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal
access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. 21.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a set of chairs from
the Website, aiming to find high-quality furniture at an affordable
price, says the suit.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
COMMUNICATIONS DATA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pierce Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON PIERCE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. COMMUNICATIONS DATA GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-02170-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., June 5, 2025) is a class
action lawsuit against CDG for its negligent failure to protect and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive
personally identifiable information.
According to CDG, on Feb. 13, 2025, CDG discovered a data security
incident in which a cyber threat actor attempted to disrupt its
systems in a possible effort to deploy ransomware and solicit a
ransom payment.
CDG claims it took actions to secure its systems and terminated any
unauthorized access, but on March 17, 2025, CDG detected
unauthorized access to sensitive personal information of Duo
Broadband customers.
As a result of CDG's negligence and insufficient data security,
cybercriminals easily infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately
protected network and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class
-- approximately 42,518 individuals (the Data Breach). The
Plaintiff's, and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals
who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the
rest of their lives, says the suit.
[
Ms. Pierce is an individual domiciled in Russell Springs, Kentucky
and is a customer of Duo Broadband.
The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach Letter from CDG
dated May 15, 2025, notifying her that her name, Social Security
number, address, and date of birth, were subject to unauthorized
access during CDG's Data Breach.
CDG is a billing vendor for service providers such as Duo
Broadband.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
COMMUNITY COUNSELING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fequiere Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Fequiere, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COMMUNITY COUNSELING OF BRISTOL COUNTY, INC.,
Case No. 2573CV00412 (June 2, 2025) arises out of the recent data
security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the
Defendant which held in its possession certain personally
identifiable information and protected health information of its
current and former patients, the putative class members.
The Data Breach occurred on or around May 20, 2024.
The Plaintiff seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief for the class.
CCBC provides Massachusetts residents with adult behavioral health
services, child and family services, acute care services, community
support services, and rehab and recovers services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
53 State Street, Ste. 500
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 913 0363
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350 3931
E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com
COSTAR GROUP: Drummer Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CoStar Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Dywanna Drummer, Anthony Dantonio, Schalise
Lee, Cynthia Rubio, Mary Lee Wallace, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CoStar Group, Inc., Case No.
5:25-cv-01047-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
CoStar Group, Inc. -- https://www.costargroup.com/ -- is an
American provider of information, analytics, and marketing services
to the commercial property industry in North America and
Europe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK AND FOTI LLC
1901 Avenue of the Stars 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498
Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC
206 Covington Street
Madisonville, LA 70447
Phone: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498
Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Melissa H. Harris, Esq.
KAHN SWICK AND FOTI LLP
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498
Email: melissa.harris@ksfcounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael H. Rubin, Esq.
LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 395-0600
Fax: (415) 395-8095
Email: michael.rubin@lw.com
- and -
Alexander Wyman, Esq.
LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
355 South Grand Avenue Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 485-1234
Fax: (213) 891-8763
Email: alex.wyman@lw.com
- and -
Nicholas J. Boyle, Esq.
LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 637-2200
Fax: (202) 637-2201
Email: nicholas.boyle@lw.com
CSX TRANS: Must Defend Against Retaliatory Termination Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Charles E. Fleming of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied
CSX Transportation, Inc.'s motion to partially dismiss the amended
complaint in the case captioned as Keith Burger, et al. v. CSX
Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-2083 (N.D. Ohio).
This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs Keith Burger and Adam
Dallas against Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. According to the
Plaintiffs, since 2015, CSX attempted to curb its employees' use of
approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act in two ways:
1. It implemented a new attendance policy called the "Crew
Attendance Point System" or "CAPS" that penalizes and discriminates
against employees who take FMLA leave because the policy permits
negative points for missed time to be erased from an employee's
record after a remediation period, except in cases of FMLA leave.
2. CSX attempted to purge employees who rely on FMLA leave and
discouraged the use of FMLA leave by disciplining and terminating
employees who use it on weekends and holidays.
In January 2018, CSX charged more than 100 employees who took FMLA
leave on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve, or New
Year's Day with workplace rule violations; they were removed from
service without pay based on CSX's belief that the use of leave was
suspicious.
Plaintiff Dallas was a CSX employee who suffered from a back
condition that required inpatient care and continuing treatment by
a healthcare provider. CSX approved Dallas's request for
intermittent FMLA leave based on this condition. Dallas informed
CSX that he needed to use the approved intermittent FMLA leave from
December 24, 2017, to December 26, 2017, because of his back
condition. CSX accused Dallas of abusing his intermittent FMLA
leave and terminated him after a perfunctory hearing.
Twenty former and current CSX employees filed a class action
complaint ("Bell") on March 13, 2018, in the District Court of
Maryland, asserting various claims of interference and retaliation
under the FMLA. The Bell court stayed the case on November 19,
2018, pending arbitration.
On May 16, 2019, the Bell court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend the complaint to allow the addition of new
plaintiffs asserting claims for FMLA retaliation. The court stated
that the "statute of limitations as to the proposed new Plaintiffs
on their claim of retaliation in violation of the FMLA will be
tolled until thirty days after the stay is lifted."
On July 15, 2019, the court amended its order to confirm the
statute of limitations would be tolled for these claims. The stay
was lifted on April 1, 2024. On April 23, 2024, the Bell plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding Dallas. On November 26, 2024, the
court transferred the individual cases of plaintiffs residing
outside the District of Maryland, including Burger and Dallas, to
their respective federal districts.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 2, 2025,
alleging unlawful interference and discrimination under the FMLA.
They assert that CSX interfered with and discriminated against
their rights under the FMLA by disqualifying them from having
attendance points expunged, charging them with workplace rule
violations for taking FMLA leave, removing them from service,
forcing them to submit more information than required under law,
and terminating them for using FMLA leave.
On January 23, 2025, CSX filed a motion to dismiss Dallas' claims
based on retaliatory termination, arguing they were distinct from
his earlier retaliatory suspension claims and barred by the statute
of limitations. Dallas responded that his claims are not new but
clarify the factual basis of his existing FMLA claims.
The Court found that the amended complaint asserts new FMLA claims
based on retaliatory termination. FMLA retaliation claims must
allege a protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a
causal connection. The Court noted that suspension and termination
are separate adverse actions, and a claim based on suspension is
distinct from one based on termination.
Because Dallas was terminated shortly after December 26, 2017, he
would have had to file such claims by early 2021. Dallas did not
raise them until January 2, 2025. However, the Court held that
Dallas' claims are not time-barred due to the doctrine of relation
back.
An amendment relates back when it asserts a claim that arises out
of the conduct or occurrence set out in the original pleading. The
Court emphasized that Dallas’s new claims—though asserting a
different adverse action—stem from the same conduct as alleged in
the initial complaint: his use of FMLA leave from December 24–26,
2017, and the resulting disciplinary action by CSX.
CSX argued that Dallas cannot rely on the relation back doctrine
because he was added in the 2024 amended complaint, which should be
treated as his original pleading and thus is untimely. The Court
rejected this argument, finding that the statute of limitations had
been tolled and Dallas' original claims were timely filed.
Therefore, the new retaliatory termination claims relate back and
are also timely.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7BacHD
CVS HEALTH: Getz Data Breach Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NEIL GETZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS
PHARMACY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2025CUNP040646, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 23, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-04689 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act; the California Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act; California Unfair Competition Law;
breach of confidence; invasion of privacy under California's
Constitution; common law intrusion upon seclusion; and negligence
and negligence per se.
Headquartered in Woonsocket, MI, CVS Health Corporation is an
American healthcare company that owns several brands, including CVS
Pharmacy, CVS Caremark, and Aetna. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebecca B. Durrant, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (212) 808-7551
E-mail: rdurrant@kelleydrye.com
- and -
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
Whitney M. Smith, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 503-5900
E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
wsmith@kelleydrye.com
DAVE INC: Faces Harris Class Action Suit Over High-Cost Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN HARRIS, DANIELLE JOHNSON, and KASMYRIA LEEROYSTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DAVE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01697-EA (D. Md., May 29, 2025) is a
class action suit under the Maryland's Consumer Loan Law, Consumer
Protection Act, and Consumer Debt Collection Act seeking to recover
all payments made to the Defendant on any cash advance on which a
charge was made.
Maryland law prohibits short-term, high-cost loans, capping the
interest chargeable on this form of credit to 33%. For years, the
Defendant has ignored Maryland law and has offered a short-term,
high-cost cash advance product, in violation of the law.
The Defendant has used this product to extract from Maryland
consumers charges that, on average, yield an annual percentage rate
greater than 300%, which is almost ten times the legal limit.
The Defendant offered a cash advance product to Maryland residents
through a lending app called "Dave" until sometime in 2023 or 2024.
The Defendant's credit product provided up to $500.00 in advances
per pay period. The advertised and intended purpose of this credit
product was to provide an instant source of cash that Maryland
residents could use to pay time-sensitive obligations or cover
surprise expenses.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Randy Chen, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
rchen@classlawdc.com
DEBUT BIOTECHNOLOGY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. DEBUT BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04633
(S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.deinde.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against the
blind.
Accordingly, the Defendant's policy and practice to deny Plaintiff,
along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to
Defendant's Website, and to therefore specifically deny the goods
and services that are offered thereby.
Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to
its Website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and
are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s numerous
goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the
Website, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software. Plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader
user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the
Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.,
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.deinde.com
to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and
which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services
throughout the United States including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
DELTA AIR LINES: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Smith, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV11805 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04930.
The Complaint alleges eight causes of action, as follows: failure
to pay wages for all hours worked at the minimum wage in violation
of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime
worked and/or failure to pay overtime at the proper overtime rate
of pay in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to authorize or
permit meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to
authorize or permit rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code;
failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick days at the regular rate
of pay in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to timely pay earned
wages and final paychecks due at the time of separation of
employment in violation of Cal. Lab. Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com
DERMATOLOGISTS OF BIRMINGHAM: Attorneys Investigate Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Dermatologists of
Birmingham data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
Dermatologists of Birmingham Security Incident: What Happened?
On June 4, 2025, Shelby Dermatology, PC, operating as
Dermatologists of Birmingham, announced a data breach that
potentially impacts the privacy of certain individuals'
information. The breach was detected on March 7, 2025, when
suspicious network activity was discovered. Dermatologists of
Birmingham initiated an investigation to examine the data breach's
scope and determine the affected data and individuals.
A review, concluded on May 15, 2025, revealed that unauthorized
access may have resulted in the copying of sensitive data,
including names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers,
birthdates, medical diagnoses and treatments, health insurance
information, and, in some cases, Social Security numbers.
Notices are being mailed to those affected by the Dermatologists of
Birmingham data breach, provided valid addresses are available. The
breach has impacted approximately 86,414 individuals and was
reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on May
2, 2025. Dermatologists of Birmingham offers medical and cosmetic
dermatology services and has offices in both Birmingham and
Alabaster, Alabama.
What You Can Do
If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want
to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit
to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing
with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force Dermatologists of Birmingham to
ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was
entrusted with. [GN]
DIALPAD INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over AI Analytics
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that
Dialpad, Inc. faces a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the
artificial intelligence (AI) analytics software provider has
unlawfully "wiretapped," recorded and used the private
conversations of consumers who call T-Mobile's customer support
line.
The 16-page privacy lawsuit says that Dialpad's AI analytics
platform records, transcribes and analyzes live T-Mobile customer
communications in real time using its proprietary DialpadGPT
technology. According to the suit, Dialpad "eavesdrops" on and
intercepts these conversations without consumers' knowledge or
consent, in violation of a California privacy law.
Per the case, when a consumer calls T-Mobile's customer support
line, Dialpad's AI technology analyzes the interaction to identify
patterns, track keywords, predict customer satisfaction and
resolution outcomes and more.
Although callers are informed that the call may be recorded, they
are not told their conversations will be shared with Dialpad, an
unauthorized and unrelated third party, the complaint contends.
"The platform operates by recording a caller's speech and then
transcribing it using natural language processing ('NLP'), allowing
artificial intelligence ('AI') to read the text, identify patterns,
and classify the data. The result is that T-Mobile consumers'
telephone conversations are surreptitiously transmitted to
Dialpad's servers, where it is processed and analyzed using
Dialpad's AI and NLP, and thereafter presented to Dialpad's clients
in dashboards, searchable transcripts, and reports."
The alleged lack of consent is "particularly troublesome" given
that the company can use the trove of harvested data for its own
purposes beyond supplying the recordings to its clients, the filing
charges.
The plaintiff, a California resident, claims that Dialpad
unlawfully eavesdropped on his confidential communications when he
called T-Mobile in March of this year. The man says that he never
authorized the defendant to monitor or record his calls, nor
consented to having his communications used to operate Dialpad's
services.
As such, the company has violated the plaintiff and other
California residents' protected privacy rights, the lawsuit against
Dialpad alleges.
The class action lawsuit looks to represent all California
residents who called T-Mobile while in the state and whose
conversations were intercepted and recorded by Dialpad. [GN]
DIAMOND FOODS: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Foods, LLC.
The case is styled as Trevion Jackson, individually, and on behalf
of other Members of the general public v. Diamond Foods, LLC, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0007558 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May
30, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Diamond Foods, LLC -- https://www.diamondnuts.com/ -- is a company
primarily known for its Diamond of California nuts, including
walnuts, pecans, and almonds.[BN]
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Miller Class Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge
--------------------------------------------------------------
REGINA D. MILLER and SHAMISHA WALKER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00599 (M.D. Tenn., May 29, 2025) challenges Dollar
General's practice of charging a monthly "tobacco surcharge"
without providing the clear and mandatory disclosures required by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Specifically, ERISA regulations require wellness programs that are
tied to tobacco-use surcharges to inform participants of the
availability of a reasonable alternative standard and to disclose
that the recommendations of a participant's personal physician will
be accommodated.
Accordingly, Dollar General fails to provide this required notice
in its benefits materials, thereby violating ERISA’s
anti-discrimination and fiduciary duty provisions and depriving
employees of information and protections to which they are entitled
under federal law.
Tobacco surcharges have become increasingly common, but they are
only lawful if imposed through a compliant "wellness program" that
satisfies strict conditions established by the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury under ERISA.
The Plaintiffs were employees of Dollar General, who paid a premium
differential in the form of increased premiums for health insurance
of roughly $40 per month (roughly $480 annually) offered through
Dollar General during their employment.
Dollar General is a leading national retailer with thousands of
store locations across the country. It operates a chain of discount
stores offering a wide range of consumer goods, including household
items, food, and health-related products, and employs tens of
thousands of employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Kimberly Dodson, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: spietrowski@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
kdodson@sirillp.com
DPS INC: Harris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HARRIS, individually and for others similarly situated v.
DPS, INC. D/B/A SIMPLIFIED OUTSOURCE SOLUTIONS, Case No.
4:25-cv-04089-CCT (D.S.D., May 30, 2025) is a collective action to
recover unpaid wages and other damages from DPS pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, DPS employed Harris as one of its Hourly Employees.
Plaintiff Harris and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek.
However, DPS does not pay Harris and the other Hourly Employees for
all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, DPS
requires Harris and the other Hourly Employees to log in/boot up
their computers and phones prior to their shifts and log out/boot
down their computers and phones "off the clock," without
compensation, asserts the suit.
DPS does not pay Harris and the other Hourly Employees for the time
they spend booting up and booting down their computers and phones,
"off the clock," before and after their shifts, the suit adds.
DPS employed Harris as a customer contact agent from approximately
January 2023 until February 2025.
The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is
defined as: All hourly DPS employees who worked during the last
three years through final resolution of this action.
DPS "offers a full spectrum of Business Process Outsourcing
Services including consulting, training, call center/customer
support, project management, CRM, and proprietary communication
software."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah E. Baron Houy
BANGS, MCCULLEN, BUTLER,
FOYE & SIMMONS, L.L.P.
333 W. Blvd., Ste. 400; PO Box 2670
Rapid City, SD 57709-2670
Telephone: (605) 343-1040
E-mail: sarah@bangsmccullen.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Moore Sues Over Illegal Gambling Apps & Websites
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON MOORE, ZHICHENG ZHEN, and JONATHAN SMITH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
DRAFTKINGS, INC., and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04618
(N.D. Cal., June 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from DraftKings' illegal gambling operation in
California. According to the complaint, DraftKings operates mobile
gambling applications and websites within California, representing
to customers and the public that its "Daily Fantasy Sports"
contests and "Pick6" contests are legal forms of gambling in
California. The Plaintiffs seek to stop the unlawful gambling that
occurs on DraftKings' Gambling Websites in California and to
recover the money that DraftKings has unlawfully taken from them.
DraftKings, Inc. is an American gambling company, with its
headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Wesley M. Griffith, Esq.
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
3550 Watt Ave., Suite 140
Sacramento, CA 95821
Telephone: (530) 490-3178
Email: wes@almeidalawgroup.com
jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Christopher Nienhaus, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Ave
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (708) 529-5418
Email: chris@almeidalawgroup.com
EBIE CORP: Chitic Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS CALEL CHITIC, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. EBIE CORP. (D/B/A MAD FOR CHICKEN WILLIAMSBURG), SEAN
CHO, and MOE ADAMS, Case No. 1:25-cv-03081 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2025)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
York Labor Law.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Chitic worked for Defendants without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. In this regard, the Defendants
have failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Chitic was employed as a cook at the restaurant located
at 617 Grand St, Brooklyn, New York.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Korean inspired
restaurant, located at 617 Grand St, Brooklyn, NY 11211, under the
name "Mad for Chicken."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
EL CONCILIO CALIFORNIA: Khen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Concilio
California. The case is styled as Sopee Khen, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. El Concilio California,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0007689 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., June 2, 2025).
The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
El Concilio -- https://www.elconcilio.org/ -- is an agency
committed to uplift and advocate for California's diverse,
marginalized communities in a whole-person approach.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd. Fl. 12
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1176
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com
ENTERTAINMENT EARTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Entertainment Earth, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-05799 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2025) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's
lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Entertainment
Earth for Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Headquartered in Simi Valley, CA, Entertainment Earth, Inc. owns
and operates that website, Entertainmentearth.com, which offers a
variety of collectibles, toys, statues, busts, graphic novels,
comic books, movie posters, Funko Pops, home decor, apparel,
accessories, and limited-edition items for sale. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: achan@ealg.law
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Rieger Class Action Suit Over Kickback Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE RIEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ANGEION GROUP LLC, JND LEGAL
ADMINISTRATION, KROLL SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION LLC, HUNTINGTON
NATIONAL BANK, WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, and DOES 1- 20, Case No. e
3:25-cv-04793 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2025) seeks to end to the
Defendants' clandestine practices, enjoin them from continued use
of the kickbacks for their own benefit, compensate the class
members for the harm caused by Defendants' illegal conduct, and
stop the anticompetitive practices that the Defendants have carried
on, which has depressed payouts substantially in class actions in
the United States, pursuant to the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff was a class member in In re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 16-md-02752-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), a class action settlement for which an Administrator
Defendant served as the court-approved settlement administrator who
then used a Bank Defendant to hold and disburse the funds.
Accordingly, class members and individuals all over the country
received class and mass action settlement disbursements from
Defendants. Unbeknownst to them, the Defendants, and/or their
wholly owned subsidiaries, siphoned undisclosed kickbacks from the
Bank Defendants from the settlement funds, none of which were
disclosed to the Courts, class action counsel, or the class
members, including Plaintiff, says the suit.
The Defendants are settlement administration companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Ammons, Esq.
Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3950
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-8907
E-mail: david.ammons@ltlattorneys.com
caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com
FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc., continues to defend itself
against the securities suit pending in the District of Maryland,
according to the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period of March 31,
2025.
On February 28, 2025, Star Equity Fund, LP ("Star Equity") filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, docketed as case no. 1:25-cv-00677-SAG, against Firsthand
Capital Management, Inc., Scalar, LLC, current and former members
of the board of directors of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc.
(the "Fund"), and an officer of the Fund as defendants.
The complaint also names the Fund as a nominal defendant. The
complaint alleges putative class action claims against the
defendants for violations of federal securities laws for alleged
false or misleading statements relating to the valuation of the
Fund's assets, and it also purports to allege derivative claims
against defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and breach of
contract related to management of the Fund and its assets. In
connection with the derivative claims, the complaint names the Fund
as a nominal defendant. Although purporting to assert the
derivative claims on behalf of the Fund, Star Equity did not make a
pre-suit demand on the Fund's board of directors to initiate
litigation over those claims. The Fund believes that the
allegations in the complaint lack merit and intends to vigorously
defend this action. The Fund has certain indemnification
obligations to certain defendants. Defense costs for the Fund,
despite the Fund's having in place an applicable liability
insurance policy, may be significant and therefore could have an
impact on the Fund's financial condition that cannot now be
determined.
FIVE BELOW: Rodriguez Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Angelimarly Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Five
Below, Inc., Case No. 2584-CV-01163 (Filed April 30, 2025) was
removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Suffolk County, to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Eastern Division on May 13,
2025.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-11637 to the proceedings.
The Plaintiff alleges that she "applied to work as a Seasonal Sales
Associate at [Five Below's] store in Leominster, Massachusetts,"
and the job application did not provide the "notice of her rights
concerning lie detector tests that is required by Mass. Gen. Laws
Ch. 149, section 19B(2)(b)."
Five Below is an American chain of specialty discount stores that
prices most of its products at $5 or less, plus a smaller
assortment of products priced up to $25.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Godkin, Esq.
James E. Kruzer, Esq.
BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP
1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410
Boston, MA 02210
E-mail: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com
kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Keri L. Engelman, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Telephone: (617) 341-7700
E-mail: keri.engelman@morganlewis.com
FLAVORS LLC: Pitterson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Culinary Advisors
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANELLE PITTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAVORS LLC d/b/a THE CONTRACTS
LOUNGE, and SAMIA BINGHAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03029
(E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law, and the New York State and City Freelance Isn't Free Act
including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay all wages owed,
failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a culinary advisor
in the State of New York from January 2024 through May 2024.
Flavors LLC, doing business as The Contracts Lounge, is a
restaurant company headquartered in Hyattsville, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emanuel Kataev, Esq.
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC
6829 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 412-2421
Facsimile: (718) 489-4155
Email: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com
FORTREA HOLDINGS: Faces Deslande Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS DESLANDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORTREA HOLDINGS INC., THOMAS PIKE, and JILL MCCONNELL,
Case No. 1:25-cv-04630 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2025) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Fortrea securities between July 3, 2023 and
February 28, 2025 both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In March 2024, the Company announced that it was targeting 2025
adjusted EBITDA margins -- a measure of a company's operating
profit as a percentage of its revenue—on a full-year basis of
approximately 13%. In August 2024, the Company slightly lowered its
targeted adjusted 2025 EBITDA margins to the "11-12% range," but
touted that this would still "represent a roughly 300 basis points
improvement at the midpoint versus 2024, and broadly a 30% to 40%
increase in adjusted EBITDA dollars delivered."
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that Fortrea overestimated the
amount of revenue the Pre-Spin Projects were likely to contribute
to the Company's 2025 earnings.
On September 25, 2024, the investment bank Jefferies published a
report downgrading Fortrea from buy to hold. On this news,
Fortrea's stock price fell $2.73 per share, or 12.29%, to close at
$19.48 per share on Sept. 25, 2024.
Then, on December 6, 2024, market analyst Baird Equity Research
downgraded Fortrea to neutral from outperform after the Company
abruptly cancelled two scheduled conferences. On this news,
Fortrea's stock price fell $1.90 per share, or 8.06%, to close at
$21.67 per share on December 6, 2024.
Finally, on March 3, 2025, Fortrea announced its fourth quarter and
full year 2024 financial results, disclosing that its "targeted
revenue and adjusted EBITDA trajectories for 2025 [were] not in
line with [its] prior expectations." On this news, Fortrea's stock
price fell $3.47 per share, or 25.05%, to close at $10.38 per share
on March 3, 2025.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, asserts the suit.
Fortrea is a global contract research organization (CRO) that
provides biopharmaceutical product and medical device development
solutions to pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device
customers.
Fortrea was formerly the clinical development and commercialization
services business of Labcorp Holdings Inc., a life sciences and
healthcare company. In June 2023, Labcorp spun off Fortrea as a
standalone, publicly traded company (the "Spin-Off" or the
"Spin").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II
Thomas H. Przybylowski
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
FRANKIE SHOP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FRANKIE SHOP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03124 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.thefrankieshop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted
multiple times, most recently on September 24, 2024, to access
Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for
Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied the
full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and
services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase Alondra Leggings. He
wished to purchase this product because he was looking for a
comfortable, versatile clothing item suitable for casual wear and
light physical activity. He wanted to find a well-fitting garment
with a neutral color and minimalist design that would blend easily
into his wardrobe.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
FTX TRADING: Denies Clients' KYC System Access, Mahler Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MAHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FTX TRADING LTD., ALAMEDA RESEARCH, LLC,
WEST REALM SHIRES, INC., and WEST REALM SHIRES SERVICES, INC.,
d/b/a FTX US, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04565 (S.D.N.Y., May 30,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
breach of contract, violation of Section 349 of the New York
General Business Law, unjust enrichment, declaratory and injunctive
relief, breach of bailment, and conversion.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide the
Plaintiff access to the Know Your Customer ("KYC") systems
necessary to file a claim in the FTX bankruptcy proceedings,
despite the Plaintiff being a legitimate account holder with funds
and digital assets held on the FTX platform. According to the
complaint, this occurred after the Defendants knowingly refunded
the Plaintiff less than he was entitled to upon making multiple
withdrawal requests and submitting a Kroll claim and not responding
to any further attempts for communication. As a result of the
Defendants' denial of access, the Plaintiff has been effectively
excluded from the bankruptcy claims process and denied any
opportunity to recover assets deposited on FTX prior to its
collapse.
FTX Trading Ltd. is a cryptocurrency exchange operator incorporated
in Antigua and Barbuda.
Alameda Research, LLC is a cryptocurrency trading firm based in
Delaware.
West Realm Shires, Inc. is a Delaware corporation affiliated with
FTX Trading Ltd.
West Realm Shires Services, Inc., doing business as FTX US, is a
Delaware corporation affiliated with FTX Trading Ltd. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot Singer, Esq.
CONDUIT LAW, LLC
1576 Sherman St., Suite 120
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (720) 432-7032
Facsimile: (720) 310-2224
Email: elliot@conduit.law
GENERAL MOTORS: Burkett Sues Over Material Safety Defect
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Burkett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY; and GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, INC,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00584 (E.D. Tex., June 2, 2025), is brought
concerning a material safety defect in tens of thousands of
Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac SUV's and Trucks manufactured by GM
from 2010 to the present that utilize keyless entry to lock,
unlock, and/or start the vehicle (the "Class Vehicles"), all of
which have a hackable key fob system (the "Theft Prone Defect" or
"Defect").
The Class Vehicles have been, and still are, being targeted due to
the Defect, which allows these Class Vehicles, that utilize keyless
entry, to be easily unlocked and stolen without the car's security
alarm being set off. The signal between the key fob and the car's
computer can be easily intercepted by a nearby electronic device,
which records and then replays the signal, tricking the car into
believing the genuine key fob is in close proximity. Consequently,
within a matter of 20-30 seconds, the intercepted signal can be
utilized to unlock the car and start the ignition.
Despite warnings issued by police in many municipalities, upon
information and belief, GM has taken no action to prevent or
rectify the harm done to consumers. After heavy public scrutiny by
customers, media, and politicians, GM has acknowledged that the
Class Vehicles are highly prone to theft, yet they have failed to
admit that they suffer from the Theft Prone Defect, issue a safety
recall, provide warranty coverage, or offer a complete remedy for
the Theft Prone Defect in the Class Vehicles.
As a result of GM's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business
practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including
Plaintiff and members of the Classes, have suffered an
ascertainable loss of money and/or property in the form of, for
example, loss of value, loss of use of the vehicles, repair costs,
insurance deductible costs, higher insurance premiums, lost time,
and other inconvenience and anguish.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress GM's
misconduct. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of an
adequate remedy for the Theft Prone Defect, an appropriate curative
notice regarding the existence the Theft Prone Defect, recovery of
damages, a repair under state consumer-protection statutes and
implied warranties, and reimbursement of all expenses associated
with the repair or replacement of the Class Vehicle and damage
caused by the Theft Prone Defect, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a used 2016 GMC Sierra 1500 on April 20,
2017.
General Motors LLC, through its various entities, designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and
leases passenger vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
Austin P. Smith, Esq.
Paul D. Stickney, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
austin@stecklerlaw.com
judgestick@gmail.com
- and -
Monica Goff, Esq.
CARTER ARNETT PLLC
8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75206
Phone: (214) 550-8188
Facsimile: (214) 550-8185
Email: mgoff@carterarnett.com
- and -
Timothy Micah Dortch, Esq.
DORTCH LINDSTROM LIVINGSTON LAW GROUP
2613 Dallas Parkway, Suite 220
Plano, TX 75093
Phone: (214) 393-1212
Facsimile: (888) 653-3299
Email: Micah@dll-law.com
GENESCO INC: Edwards Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenda Edwards, individually and on behalf of putative class
members v. Genesco, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00452-SDJ (E.D. Tex.,
April 30, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful
telemarketing text messages.
The Defendant has contributed to this barrage of telephone spam by
initiating illegal text messages to the Plaintiff and thousands of
others like her. In December of 2024, the Plaintiff requested that
the Defendant's text messages stop. But the Defendant continued to
send her telemarketing text messages Unfortunately, this is not the
first time the Defendant has been sued for spamming consumers after
they asked for the text messages to stop. The Plaintiff brings this
action individually and on behalf of putative class members who
likewise were spammed by the Defendant after asking for the
messages to stop, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the residential telephone subscriber and user of
the cell phone number.
Genesco describes itself as "a leading retailer and wholesaler of
branded footwear, apparel and accessories with net sales for Fiscal
2025 at $2.3 billion."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reid Hudson, Esq.
THE HQ FIRM, P.C.
7533 S. Center View Ct. #4424
West Jordan, UT 84084
Phone: 385-440-4129
Email: reid.hudson@thehqfirm.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Settles Infant Formula Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that Gerber Products Co. agreed to a
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims its Gerber Good
Start Gentle infant formula can reduce the risk of allergies.
The Gerber formula class action settlement benefits consumers who
purchased Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula in Florida or New
York between Oct. 10, 2011, and April 23, 2016.
Gerber is a baby food and formula brand owned by Nestle. The
company sells a variety of formula products, including Good Start
Gentle formula.
According to a class action lawsuit against Gerber, the company
misled consumers by advertising its Good Start Gentle formula as
able to reduce the risk of allergies. Plaintiffs in the Gerber
formula class action lawsuit say Gerber has no scientific evidence
to support this claim.
Gerber has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the Gerber formula class action settlement,
class members can receive a cash payment based on their state of
residence and the number of formula units they purchased.
Florida class members can receive $3 per unit of Gerber Good Start
Gentle formula purchased, up to five units for a maximum payment of
$15. New York class members can receive $4 per unit for up to five
units, for a maximum payment of $20.
Class members who provide proof of purchase can receive higher
payments. Florida class members can receive $3 per unit purchased
for up to 20 units, for a maximum payment of $60. New York class
members can receive $4 per unit for up to 20 units, for a maximum
payment of $80.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 1, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Gerber formula class action
settlement is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Aug. 25, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula in
Florida or New York between Oct. 10, 2011, and April 23, 2016.
Potential Award
Up to $15 for Florida class members and $20 for New York class
members, or more depending on proof of purchase.
Proof of Purchase
Proof of residency in Florida or New York may include a copy of a
driver's license, residential lease, mortgage, utility bill,
payment card statement, deed, paystub, insurance bill or court
documents that show the class member lived in Florida or New York
during the class period.
Proof of purchase may include copies of receipts, invoices,
direct-purchase records and payment-card records that show the
purchaser identity, date of purchase, itemized number of units
purchased, specific product purchased and purchase amount.
Self-prepared documentation will not be accepted.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
08/25/2025
Case Name
Hasemann, et al. v. Gerber Products Co., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-02995-EK-RER (E.D.N.Y.) and Manemeit v. Gerber Products
Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-00093-EK-RER (E.D.N.Y.), both in the in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Final Hearing
09/09/2025
Settlement Website
Gerber Infant Formula Settlement
Claims Administrator
GSG Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@GSGSettlement.com
(866) 995-4133
Class Counsel
Brett Cebulash
Miles Greaves
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP
Shanon J. Carson
Jacob M. Polakoff
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
Michael R. Reese
Carlos F. Ramirez
REESE LLP
Jean Martin
Francesca Burne
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
Defense Counsel
Daniel J. Thomasch
Justine Goeke
Christopher Chorba
Jason R. Meltzer
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Geoffrey W. Castello
Jaclyn M. Metzinger
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP [GN]
GIANT EAGLE: Agrees to Settle Retirement Plan Suit for $668,750
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Giant Eagle has
agreed to pay a $668,750 settlement that, if approved by the court,
will resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged the
supermarket chain violated federal law by imprudently managing its
employee retirement savings plan.
If approved, the proposed class action settlement will cover all
consumers who participated in the Giant Eagle employee savings plan
at any time between August 23, 2018 and the date the deal receives
preliminary court approval, including any beneficiary of a deceased
participant and any alternate payee of an individual subject to a
Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the plan
during the qualifying period.
According to court documents, the proposed Giant Eagle ERISA
settlement covers a class of approximately 7,000 active plan
participants and 8,800 former participants.
If the deal is initially approved, class members may be eligible to
receive a pro-rated share of the $668,750 settlement fund after
deductions are made for taxes, attorneys' fees, service awards and
litigation and administrative expenses, the settlement agreement
says.
Consumers will not need to do anything to receive a Giant Eagle
settlement payment, the agreement relays. Class action settlement
payouts will be paid directly into current participants' plan
accounts, while payments to former participants will be issued by
check, the document states.
According to the settlement agreement, individual payment amounts
will be determined based on each participant's plan account balance
compared with the balances of all class members.
Notice of the Giant Eagle class action settlement will be mailed to
eligible class members within 30 days of the date the deal receives
preliminary approval, court documents state. Should the deal be
approved, the court-authorized website for the settlement,
GiantEagleERISAsettlement.com, will also be established within that
time.
The class action lawsuit against Giant Eagle alleged that the
company breached its fiduciary duties under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to implement
prudent management procedures and allowing the plan to pay
unreasonable costs for recordkeeping and administrative services.
[GN]
GOODRX INC: Controls Prices Paid to Pharmacies, OneroRx Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ONERORX, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC., GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CVS
CAREMARK CORP., EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE
SYSTEMS, INC., and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-04926 (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to artificially
suppress the rebates and reimbursement rates for generic
prescription medications sold in the United States under the
GoodRx's Integrated Savings Program program. The Defendants exert
their market power by employing various anticompetitive tactics to
restrain competition in the prescription drug dispensing market,
forcing independent pharmacies out of business and thereby
increasing the market share of the pharmacy benefit managers'
affiliated pharmacies. As a result of the Defendants' conduct,
pharmacies were injured by receiving decreased reimbursement for
dispensing generic prescription drugs and paying increased fees to
PBMs and GoodRx resulting from discount card transactions, says the
suit.
OneroRx, Inc. is a pharmacy operator, headquartered in West Des
Moines, Iowa.
GoodRx, Inc. is a prescription drug price comparison tool provider,
with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California.
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a prescription drug price comparison tool
provider, with its principal place of business in Santa Monica,
California.
CVS Caremark Corp. is a pharmacy benefit manager with its
headquarters in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Express Scripts, Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager with its
headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri.
MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager
with its headquarters in San Diego, California.
Navitus Health Solutions, LLC is a pharmacy benefit manager with
its headquarters in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison E. Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
David J. Ko, Esq.
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
Rachel C. Bowanko, Esq.
Vinh Le, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: dko@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
rbowanko@kellerrohrback.com
vle@kellerrohrback.com
HARD EIGHT: Ade Sues Over Deceptive Supplements' Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------
Kemi Ade, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hard Eight Nutrition LLC d/b/a BulkSupplements.com,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01656-MJM (D. Md., May 23, 2025)
accuses the Defendant of violating the federal and state law and
regulations that are designed to prevent deceptive supplement
labeling and breaches the express warranty created by its labeling.
According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently displays the
magnesium content of the Supplements as well as the number of
servings contained in the product on the product's label. However,
the Defendant's Magnesium supplements do not contain 400 mg of
magnesium as magnesium glycinate per serving and thus do not
contain the quantity of magnesium that is advertised, and thus
warranted, on the product's label. Instead, these supplements
contain significantly less magnesium as magnesium glycinate than
what is claimed and displayed or zero magnesium derived from
magnesium glycinate, says the suit.
Headquartered in Henderson, NV, Hard Eight Nutrition LLC markets,
advertises, distributes and sells a magnesium nutritional
supplement product throughout the United States, including
Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
HARMONY LEADS: Faces Rhinehart Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEE RHINEHART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HARMONY LEADS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00734
(W.D. Pa., May 29, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Accordingly, the Defendant caused multiple text messages to be
transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 0990
after repeated "stop" instructions by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Classes defined as
follows:
INTERNAL DO NOT CALL CLASS: All persons within the United States
who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint,
(1) were sent a text message regarding Defendant's referral
services, (2) to said person's residential telephone number, (3)
after making a request to Defendant to not receive future text
messages.
DNC Class: All persons in the United States who from four years
prior to the filing of this action through the date of class
certification (1) were sent more than one text message call within
any 12-month period; (2) where the person's telephone number that
had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least
thirty days; (3) regarding Defendant's referral services; (4) who
did not purchase or transact business with Defendant during the
eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the first
message; and (5) who did not contact Defendant during the three
months immediately preceding the date of the first message with an
inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by Defendant.
HARMONY LEADS, INC. provides lead generation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
HATTERAS FUNDS: Miley Suit Removed to D. Delaware
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John David Miley, III, and Dr. Steven
Richard Smith, and all others similarly situated v. HATTERAS FUNDS,
LP; HATTERAS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LP; DAVID B. PERKINS; H.
ALEXANDER HOLMES; STEVE E. MOSS; GREGORY S. SELLERS; and THOMAS
MANN, Case No. 25-C-05273-S7 was removed from the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, to the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00672-UNA.
On May 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Verified Amended Class Action
Complaint ("Amended Complaint" or "AC") against Defendants HIP
(formerly known as Hatteras Funds, L.P.), Perkins, H. Alexander
Holmes, Steve E. Moss, Gregory S. Sellers, and Thomas Mann
(collectively, "Defendants") in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Melanie B. Dubis, Esq.
Corri A. Hopkins, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (919) 828-0564
Email: melaniedubis@parkerpoe.com
corrihopkins@parkerpoe.com
- and -
Elena. C Norman, Esq.
Richard J. Thomas, Esq.
Robert M. Vrana, Esq.
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
Rodney Square
1000 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 571-6600
Email: enorman@ycst.com
rthomas@ycst.com
rvrana@ycst.com
HEALTHY MEALS: Face Fernandez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HEALTHY MEALS DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03022
(E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
www.healthymealsdirect.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times,
most recently on March 20, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from
Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant’s products,
but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant’s online goods, content, and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase several high-protein
meals, including the protein plus fit mac sliders & curly fries,
protein plus beef & cheese grilled burrito, and protein plus fit
beef & cheese sliders.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
HERITAGE COMPANIES: Izelo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Renato Calixto Izelo, on behalf of himself and current and former
aggrieved employees v. HERITAGE COMPANIES LLC DBA NINTH AVENUE
FOODS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV15862 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles, May 30, 2025), is brought under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for the Defendants
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants' violation of the Labor Code based 1 on Defendants'
failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all
overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to pay
overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay; failure to
authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal
periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or
permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay
rest period premium wages; statutory penalties for failure to
timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at
Defendants' location in Los Angeles County from April 11, 2023,
until December 30, 2024.
HERITAGE COMPANIES LLC DBA NINTH AVENUE FOODS is authorized to do
business within the State of California and is doing business in
the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Chloe J. Sykes, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
jklein@lelawfirm.com
csykes@lelawfirm.com
HR MANAGEMENT: Lin Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER LIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
HR MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. d/b/a VERTEX HOSPITALITY GROUP, KPOT
WESTBURY LLC, and MARCO SHIH, Case No. 2:25-cv-02993 (E.D.N.Y., May
29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff
and the Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Plaintiffs at the
required overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, seeks damages in the amount of their respective unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated (double) damages as provided by
the FLSA for overtime violations, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and such other legal and equitable
relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Vertex manages and supports KPOT Hot Pot & Korean BBQ restaurants
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
ITA KITCHEN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fernandez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ITA KITCHEN GC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-03024 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.itakitchen.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
ITA Kitchen GC, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
J. GREENE: Barry Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warden Greene. The
case is styled as Abdoulaye Barry, and others similarly situated,
Petitioner v. Warden Greene; Respondent, Case No.
3:25-cv-00960-JKM-CA (M.D. Pa., May 30, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(State).[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
J. GREENE: Diarra Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warden Greene. The
case is styled as Souleymane Diarra, and others similarly situated,
Petitioner v. Warden Greene; Respondent, Case No.
3:25-cv-00964-JKM-MP (M.D. Pa., May 30, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(State).[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Breedlove Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Francis Breedlove, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-01069-K (N.D. Tex., April 30, 2025), is brought arising out
of the recent data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in
its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII"
or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former
employees and franchisees of Defendant, the Class Members. This
Data Breach occurred between November 26, 2024 and December 21,
2024.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
certain personal information of Defendant Jani-King's employees and
franchisees, including Plaintiff. This Private Information included
but is not limited to "your full name and Social Security number."
See Notice of Data Breach ("Notice of Data Breach"). The Data
Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect individuals' Private Information with which they were
entrusted for employment or other business relationships.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks
left that property in a dangerous condition.
The Defendant, through its employees, disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members, among other things, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions. Defendant also failed to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and
security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information and failed to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private
Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the
hands of data thieves. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to
remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data
Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
Jani-King is a commercial cleaning company headquartered in
Addison, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (888) 350-3931
Service Email: service@eksm.com
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
JBR INC: Girtley Class Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
KALARI JACKSON GIRTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. JBR INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06100 (N.D. Ill.,
May 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant’s website, www.sfbaycoffee.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant’s website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit
says.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.sfbaycoffee.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the
United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
JENNIFER MILLER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JENNIFER MILLER, LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-02999
(E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.jennifermillerjewelry.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when
Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on January 9,
2025, to access Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an
effort to shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content, and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a necklace (Pearl
Lariat Chain Necklace).
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to and enjoyment of
the goods, benefits, and services of the Website, has caused
Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact due to Plaintiff's inability
to purchase a necklace (Pearl Lariat Chain Necklace), which is a
concrete and particularized injury, and is a direct result of
Defendant's conduct, asserts the suit.
Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to
attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products
and services the Website offers, and more specifically a necklace
(Pearl Lariat Chain Necklace), if remedied, says the suit.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers
features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access
navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail
consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
JONES LANG LASALLE: Villa Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anthony Villa, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CU-25-00071 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Benito, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-04560.
The Complaint asserts these claims on a class basis: Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse
Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage
Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Earned During
Employment and at Separation; and Unfair Business Practices in
Violation of Business and Professions Code among other claims.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
Stephen A. Dolar, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com
stephen.dolar@ogletree.com
KEN SHERMAN: Xiong Files Suit in D. Guam
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ken Sherman, et al.
The case is styled as Nou Xiong, next friend for V.L.; V. L., on
their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly-situated,
Petitioner v. Ken Sherman, in his official capacity as Honolulu
Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
which includes Guam; Stephen Green, in his official capacity as
Hagta, Guam Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Colonel Alan P. Borja, in his official capacity as
Warden of the Guam Department of Corrections, Hagatna Detention
Facility; Respondent, Case No. 1:25-cv-00026 (D. Guam, June 1,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(State).[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Schaeffler Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO R. SCHAEFFLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-03101-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information of Plaintiff and the Class Members,
including, without limitation: names, dates of birth, home
addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers.
According to the complaint, an estimated 364,000 Class Members were
impacted by Defendant’s negligence. As one of the largest data
brokers in the country, the Defendant possesses an extensive amount
of Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PII. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and
equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members.
On Dec. 25, 2024, an intruder accessed the Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' PII through a third-party software development
platform. The full extent of the types of sensitive personal
information, the scope of the breach, and the root cause of the
Data Breach Incident is all within the exclusive control of
Defendant and its agents, counsel, and forensic security vendors at
this phase of litigation.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
himself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4) and
23(c)(5):
"All persons whose PII was accessed and/or exfiltrated during the
Data Breach Incident."
LexisNexis is a global data and analytics company that provides
data and technology services, analytics, predictive insights, and
fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Telephone: (404) 500-7861
E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com
- and -
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Mandley Sues Over Failure Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------
Kallesha Mandley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-03028-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 30, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members', personally identifiable information
("PII"), stored within Defendant's information network.
The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII financial information. At all relevant times,
Defendant knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and Class
Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share
sensitive data, including highly confidential PII and financial
information. On December 25, 2024, upon information and belief,
unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information as
hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of
the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PII and financial information of Plaintiff and
Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that
seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and
Class Members in the future, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is a data analytics provider that offers customers
solutions to manage risk, make better decisions, and improve
operations across various industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: 770-227-6375
Facsimile: 770-227-6373
Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Rogers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Insurance
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as John Rogers, individually
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Liberty
Insurance Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Safeco
Insurance Company, Case No. 25STCV15866 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 30, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex
case only) (General Jurisdiction)."
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.libertymutual.com/
-- is an American diversified global insurer and the sixth-largest
property and casualty insurer in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan Selik, Esq.
MCCATHERN, LLP
233 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 720
Santa Monica, CA 90401-1207
Phone: 213-225-6150
Fax: 213-225-6151
Email: eselik@mccathernlaw.com
LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH: Court Okays Settlement in Janetis OT Pay Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to
Approve Settlement and Dismiss Claims With Prejudice in the case
captioned as MEGAN JANETIS, v. LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH, INC., Civil
Action No. RDB-23-2628 (D. Md.). The Court approved the Settlement
Agreement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
This matter arose from a dispute over unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
Plaintiff Megan Janetis brought this putative class and collective
action on behalf of herself and all hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendant LifeBridge Health, Inc. who had a meal period
automatically deducted from their wages at any time on or after
September 17, 2020. Janetis sought recovery of overtime wages,
attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and liquidated damages based
on her allegation that LifeBridge subjected her and other employees
to automatic lunch deduction without providing bona fide meal
breaks. Two individuals, Carolyn Hurlbut and Tanisha Robinson,
filed consents to join this lawsuit as Opt-In Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff vigorously argued that she and Putative Collective
Members worked during meal breaks such that they were owed
compensation, including compensation for meal breaks shorter than
30 minutes. Plaintiff disagreed with LifeBridge's position such
that the certification of an FLSA collective would be heavily
disputed.
Plaintiff and Putative Collective Members contended that liquidated
damages were appropriate, challenging LifeBridge's good faith
defense.
LifeBridge denied Plaintiff's allegations, denied liability, and
raised various affirmative defenses. LifeBridge contended that no
FLSA violation occurred because employees reported while clocking
out of each shift whether they had taken their full lunch break,
and the system would cancel the automatic deduction if an employee
indicated she had not taken her full break. LifeBridge maintained
that it had no liability for uncompensated meal breaks that were
shorter than thirty minutes. LifeBridge argued that under the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's "predominant benefit
test," no liability would apply to meal breaks of fewer than thirty
minutes. The defendant disputed whether an FLSA collective would be
certified for any claims, arguing that "substantial individualized"
inquiries were required to determine whether meal breaks shorter
than 30 minutes are compensable.
On December 8, 2023, the parties agreed to stay the case for early
mediation and informally exchanged documents for settlement
discussions. On April 18, 2024, and May 8, 2024, the parties
attended mediation sessions with experienced wage and hour mediator
Dennis Clifford. On February 20, 2025, the parties again met with
Mr. Clifford for a settlement discussion in which they reached a
settlement in principle. The parties agreed to resolve the matter
on a collective basis and executed a formal Settlement Agreement
setting the terms of settlement.
The Settlement Agreement applied to approximately 14,219 "Putative
Collective Members" who were employed as non-exempt employees of
listed LifeBridge entities between September 27, 2020, and May 21,
2024. The Agreement provided for a maximum gross settlement amount
of $8,000,000, which included settlement payments for distribution
to Janetis and Qualified Claimants, Janetis's service payment,
Settlement Administration Costs, and a negotiated award of
Plaintiff's attorneys' fees of 33% of the Gross Fund and costs of
$10,716.33.
The Court determined that bona fide disputes existed between the
parties. The Court identified five specific areas of dispute:
whether LifeBridge had liability for the interrupted meal break
claim, whether LifeBridge had liability for uncompensated meal
breaks shorter than thirty minutes, whether an FLSA collective
would be certified, the likelihood of recovering liquidated
damages, and damages for a three-year rather than two-year
limitations period.
The Court evaluated the settlement's fairness and reasonableness
using six established factors: the extent of discovery, the stage
of proceedings, absence of fraud or collusion, experience of
counsel, opinions of counsel, and probability of success versus
settlement amount. The parties engaged in extensive informal
discovery, including exchanging and reviewing thousands of pay and
time records for the proposed class. There was no evidence to
suggest fraud or collusion occurred, and the parties reached the
Settlement Agreement after two mediations and several months of
arms-length negotiations.
Regarding counsel experience, Plaintiffs' counsel, Josephson
Dunlap, has significant experience in "plaintiff-side wage and hour
cases across the nation and had litigated numerous off-the-clock,
meal break cases."
Jackson Lewis is a nationwide defense firm experienced in labor and
employment law.
The Court found that the probability of success on the merits and
the relationship between the settlement and potential recovery
favored approval of the Agreement. LifeBridge asserted that even if
Plaintiff proved liability, the maximum treble damages under
Maryland wage law would amount to approximately $5,746,000 for all
plaintiffs. After payment of settlement administration costs,
attorneys fees, and Plaintiff's service award, the Net Fund would
be approximately $5,300,000. Therefore, the damages fund was about
92% of the total potential treble damages that could be awarded if
Plaintiff were to prevail in litigation.
The Court found the attorneys' fees reasonable under both
percentage of fund and lodestar methods. The parties agreed that
Plaintiffs' Counsel would receive 33% of the Gross Fund as
attorneys' fees, plus reimbursement of $10,716.33 for reasonable
out-of-pocket costs and expenses. The Court applied seven factors
for percentage of fund evaluation and determined that each factor
favored approval. The results obtained for the class favored
approval because the Settlement would provide immediate relief for
Putative Collective Members in the form of direct monetary
payments.
According to the Court, Class Counsel's request for costs was
reasonable, noting that "Reimbursement of reasonable costs and
expenses to counsel who create a common fund is both necessary and
routine." The Settlement Administrator, CAC Services Group, LLC,
was deemed reasonable as an experienced class action wage and hour
settlement claims administrator.
Therefore, the Court found that the Settlement Agreement reflected
a fair and reasonable solution of a bona fide dispute between the
parties. Accordingly, on May 1, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismiss Claims With
Prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1fSqzn
LIMESTONE UNIVERSITY: Former Employee Alleges Layoff Without Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hallie Shuler, writing for 7 News WSPA.COM, reports that a former
employee has filed a class action complaint against Limestone
University.
The complaint claims that Limestone, the Defendant, had not given
its employees an advanced notice of the mass layoffs from the
university's closure.
The complaint was brought under the 'Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988,' better known as the WARN act.
The WARN act is a law that requires most employers to provide a
60-day advanced notice to employees about a company's closing or
mass-layoffs.
The complaint stated that on April 17, 2025, a group of 478
employees were told that they would be terminated from Limestone on
April 30, 2025. [GN]
LIZZY'S FRESH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HARBOR FREIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06097
(N.D. Ill., June 1, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.harborfreight.com (, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 14, 2024, to access Defendant's Website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase power tool, the
lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Wilson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.harborfreight.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the
United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Casillas Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jesse Casillas, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
CVCS25-0000524 was removed from the Superior Court of California in
and for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on May 30, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-00653-JLT-CDB.
The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks recovery of monetary damages,
penalties, and other relief against Defendant in connection with
the following alleged causes of action: Unpaid Sick Pay Wages;
Inaccurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair or Unlawful
Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5840
Phone: (415) 591-1000
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
Email: JFife@winston.com
- and -
Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Phone: +1 213-615-1700
Facsimile: +1 213-615-1750
Email: ewoodhead@winston.com
MANTA PC: Wilson Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANTA PC TOOLS USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-06098 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.tengtoolsusa.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Manta PC Tools USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Conerly Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott Hotel
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Darnell Michael
Conerly, an individual, on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.,
Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 25CV125102 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., June 2, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Marriott International, Inc. -- https://www.marriott.com/ -- is an
American multinational company that operates, franchises, and
licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-599-8292
Fax: 619-599-8291
Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
MEYER BURGER: Gilbert Seeks to Recover 60 Days' Wages & Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Gilbert, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Meyer Burger (Americas) Ltd., Case No.
2:25-cv-01898-SPL (D. Ariz., June 2, 2025) is a class action suit
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated employees, seeking to recover from the Defendant 60 days'
wages and benefits, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment Retraining
and Notification Act (WARN Act).
Accordingly, on May 28, 2025, the Defendant suddenly terminated
approximately 300 employees who worked at, reported to, or received
assignments from its factory in Goodyear, Arizona. Employees found
out about their separations from media reports, which was confirmed
by the Company that their jobs would be eliminated effectively.
The Plaintiff worked as a production supervisor for Defendant at
its facility located at 1685 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Arizona
from October 2024 until his termination of employment on or about
May 28, 2025.
The Plaintiff was terminated without cause. Along with Plaintiff,
an estimated 300 other similarly situated employees who worked at,
reported to, or received assignments from the Facility were
terminated that day, the suit says.
Meyer Burger is an industrial manufacturer of solar cells and solar
modules.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC
2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Telephone: 602-598-4000
E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com
patti@frankelsyverson.com
- and -
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
MINT MOBILE: Fliegelman Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Natalie Fliegelman, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mint Mobile, LLC, Case No. 25CV007973
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 2:25-cv-01512-CKD.
On April 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the State Court Action
alleging claims for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act. On behalf of a putative class of callers in California,
Plaintiff alleges that Mint Mobile violated section 632.7 of CIPA
by recording inbound calls to its customer service numbers at
1-800-683-7392 and 1-844-646-8746, and return and other outbound
calls to prospective consumers, without first providing a recording
disclosure.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-576-1000
Facsimile: 213-576-1100
Email: rachel.lowe@alston.com
- and -
Tracy Yao, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
55 2nd Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-243-1000
Facsimile: 415-243-1001
Email: tracy.yao@alston.com
MONAHAN PRODUCTS: Faces Mossazadeh Suit Over Defective Car Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA MOSSAZADEH, KELLIE CUSICK, ALEXANDER PENA, and JOEY
ZAOKOPNY, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. MONAHAN PRODUCTS, LLC, a
Massachusetts limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-04862
(C.D. Cal., May 29, 2025) is a class action suit brought by
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated California consumers who purchased, within the applicable
statutes of limitations period, an UPPAbaby brand car seat in
violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
These class car seats include, without limitation, any of the
following models: Mesa Max, Mesa V2, and Aria. 2. This action
concerns the advertisement and sale of defective child car seats by
Defendant under the UPPAbaby name brand.
The class car seats were sold with a defect which causes the
child’s body to sink low in the seat, resulting in a "C" position
with chin-to-chest posture. Numerous consumers have reported their
child experienced visible discomfort, excessive drooling, choking,
crying, sweating, and respiratory issues while in the class car
seats.
While the Defendant knew the class car seats were defective, it
failed to disclose the defect to Plaintiffs and Class Members.
Through print, product package, internet, and other forms of
advertising, Defendant warranted and promised the class car seats
as free from defects and suitable for their intended use, asserts
the suit.
However, the Defendant had superior and exclusive knowledge that
its class car seats were sold with a defect which caused the car
seats' child occupants to suffer distress, discomfort, excessive
drooling, sweating, and respiratory issues.
The defect poses an unreasonable safety hazard to consumers and
their children because the "C" position and chin-to-chest posture
caused by the class car seats can obstruct the airway, leading to
difficulty breathing or even positional asphyxiation, especially in
newborns with weak neck muscles, the suit alleges.
Monahan, doing business as UPPAbaby, provides baby products. The
Company offers strollers, car seats, accessories, and other related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Shahin Rezvani, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Shahin.Rezvani@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
NATIONAL BATH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Malaterre Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET MALATERRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL BATH SYSTEMS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00543-cr (D. Vt., May 30, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach on or around December 4, 2024. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.
National Bath Systems LLC is a shower solution company, with a
principal place of business in South Burlington, Vermont. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam P. Bergeron, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
47 Maple Street, Ste. 104D
Burlington, VT 05401
Telephone: (407) 974-2075
Email: adambergeron@forthepeople.com
- and -
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-4023
Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 448-1125
Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge OKs Athletes' Pay Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Sullivan, writing for NPR, reports that a federal judge has
approved the multibillion-dollar class-action legal settlement
known as House v. NCAA, paving the way for a new era for college
sports.
Starting this fall, colleges and universities in the NCAA's top
division will be allowed to directly pay athletes for the first
time. Payments will be limited by a salary cap set initially at
$20.5 million per school. And more than $2 billion will be paid out
to former college athletes who were not allowed to earn money while
they were in school.
"Despite some compromises, the settlement agreement nevertheless
will result in extraordinary relief for members of the settlement
classes," U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote in June 6
order.
The approval of the settlement "marks a huge step forward for
college sports," said NCAA President Charlie Baker. Direct payments
to players, he added, "is a tremendously positive change and one
that was long overdue."
Origins of the settlement
For decades, college athletics were ruled by the tradition of
amateurism, and NCAA rules banned schools from compensating players
-- called "student-athletes" by the NCAA -- with anything beyond a
scholarship that covered the costs of tuition and attending
college.
But the money in big-time college sports has grown exponentially
over the past few decades. Top-level athletic departments rake in
hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast deals, ticket sales,
donations and licensing agreements.
"The money became too big to not allow athletes to get a cut," said
Noah Henderson, a one-time collegiate golfer who now directs the
sports management program at Loyola University Chicago.
The House settlement arose out of three different lawsuits over the
issue of compensation for collegiate athletes. The plaintiffs were
a class of some 390,000 current and former college athletes, and
the defendants were the NCAA and five of its athletic conferences.
The negotiations took more than a year to complete.
How the settlement works
There are two major parts of the House settlement: one that looks
backward, and one that looks forward.
Looking backward, the NCAA and schools have agreed to pay $2.75
billion to former college athletes who played before 2021. That's
the year the NCAA changed its rules to allow players to sign
licensing agreements to earn money from their name, image and
likeness rights, known as NIL. Men's football and basketball
players will earn the largest payments, with prominent athletes who
played at major schools earning as much as five or six figures.
Going forward, the settlement puts in place a new system that will
allow schools to pay players directly. Schools will be able to
decide which players to pay and how much to pay them. It is
expected that most of the compensation will be reserved for players
in the sports that generate the most revenue for schools: primarily
football, along with men's and women's basketball.
The settlement also sets a salary cap. For each school, player
compensation across all sports will count against a cap initially
set at $20.5 million and that could rise as high as $33 million in
2035. Also new are roster limits, which replace the traditional
scholarship limits for each sport. Schools may grant as many
scholarships as they like, but team sizes are limited.
Around half of the NCAA's 365 Division I schools are expected to
adopt the new framework, either because their conferences -- the
SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and PAC-12 -- are named as defendants and
they are required to comply with the settlement or because they are
expected to opt in to its terms, according to court documents filed
by lawyers negotiating the settlement. Some schools, particularly
those in the lower football subdivision and those without football
teams altogether, will opt out of the settlement and continue to
compensate athletes only with scholarships and other costs of
attendance.
Name, image and likeness
Since 2021, when the NCAA first allowed players to earn
compensation from their name, image and likeness rights, NIL
payments have become a de facto pay-to-play system. Star players,
like Duke's basketball phenom Cooper Flagg, have earned millions of
dollars on these deals.
Another key part of the settlement takes aim at those supersized
NIL deals by establishing a third-party clearinghouse to review
licensing agreements for "fair market value."
That concept has been criticized by some in college sports. It is
also likely to face legal challenges, said Sam Ehrlich, a professor
at Boise State University who tracks college sports litigation.
"There's going to be significant questions moving forward as to
what kind of powers that clearinghouse has and whether the
clearinghouse is even legal," Ehrlich told NPR last month. [GN]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Discloses Private Info, Beltran et al. Allege
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN BELTRAN, NICOLLE AYERS, and PATRICE NORWOOD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-04412 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2025) seeks to address
Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of
disclosing--without consent--the nonpublic personal information and
personally identifiable financial information of Plaintiffs and the
proposed Class members to third parties, including Meta Platforms,
Inc., Microsoft Corp., DoubleClick, NewRelic, Optimizely, HotJar,
and possibly others.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant breached its common law,
statutory, and contractual obligations to Plaintiffs and Class
members by, among other things, (i) failing to adequately review
its marketing programs and web based technology to ensure its
website was safe and secure; (ii) failing to remove or disengage
technology that was known and designed to collect and share
personal and financial Information; (iii) aiding, agreeing, and
conspiring with the third parties to intercept communications sent
and received by Plaintiffs and Class members; (iv) failing to
obtain the written consent of Plaintiffs and Class members to
disclose their personal and financial information to third parties
for third party and fourth party use; (v) failing to protect
personal and financial information and take steps to block the
transmission of Plaintiffs' and Class members' personal and
financial information through the use of tracking technology; (vi)
failing to warn Plaintiffs and Class members; and (vii) otherwise
failing to design and monitor its website to maintain the
confidentiality and integrity of its customers' personal and
financial information.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek to remedy these harms and
brings causes of action of (I) negligence; (II) negligence per se;
(III) violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access And Fraud
Act; (IV) violation Of California's Consumer Protection Law; (V)
violation of California Consumer Privacy Act; (VI) breach of
express and implied contract; (VII) unjust enrichment; (VIII)
declaratory judgment; (IX) breach of confidence; (X) violation of
The California Invasion of Privacy Act; and (XI) violation of The
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper is a Delaware corporation
that services mortgage loans. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Natalie Lyons, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq.
COHENMALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: nlyons@cohenmalad.com
vmiller@cohenmalad.com
ltoops@cohenmalad.com
llafornara@cohenmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Meekins Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alisa Meekins, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
25-C-05273-S7 was removed from the State Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-02977-SCJ.
The Plaintiff alleges claims for: violation of the federal
Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), on behalf of Plaintiff and
putative class members for alleged failure to provide documents it
relied on in denying their claims in response to their requests for
these documents; violation of the EFTA on behalf of Plaintiff for
an alleged insufficient investigation and unreasonable
determination denying her request for reimbursement; and violation
of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act based on the alleged
EFTA violation and alleged unfair and deceptive practices based on
the same allegations supporting the EFTA causes of action.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin A. Maxim, Esq.
THE MAXIM LAW FIRM, P.C.
1718 Peachtree St., NW, Suite 599
Atlanta, CA 30309
Phone: (404) 924-4272
Fax: (404) 924-4273
Email: kmaxim@maximlawfirm.com
- and -
Nancy R. Thomas, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: nancythomas@dwt.com
- and -
Fred Burnside, Esq.
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-3150
Fax: (206) 757-7016
Email: fredburnside@dwt.com
NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Welsh Files Suit in Ga. Super Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Neurological
Institute of Savannah & Center for Spine, P.C. The case is styled
as Patrick Welsh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Neurological Institute of Savannah &
Center for Spine, P.C., Case No. SPCV25-00806-WA (Ga. Super Ct.,
Chatham Cty., May 30, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Tort.
The Neurosurgical & Spine Institute of Savannah --
https://neurologicalinstitute.com/ -- is one of the largest private
neurosurgical practices on the east coast.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Casondra R. Turner, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
405 East 50th Street
Atlanta, GA
Phone: 771-772-3086
Email: cturner@milberg.com
NEW EDITION: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW EDITION APPAREL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03019 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York
City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.neweditionfashion.com/, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of
their online goods, content, and services offered to the public
through the website. The accessibility issues on the website
include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link
texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus,
the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for
some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go
to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
New Edition Apparel, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Lytwyn Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Fallon Nicole Lytwyn, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NEW YORK
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12282 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
June 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04995.
The Plaintiff's Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and
Tenth Causes of Action all place additional amounts in controversy.
Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
alleges that Defendant failed "to pay Class Plaintiffs the legal
minimum wage," and therefore they are entitled to recover "the
unpaid balance of the full amount of the unpaid wages owed."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
Anahi Cruz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com
NEW YORK: Faces Daugherty Suit Over Unfair Employment Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC DAUGHERTY, JEFF PIERCE, JORDAN POCOBELLO, PATRICK RYAN, DENISE
VAILLANCOURT, RANDY GRIFFITH, JARED FACTEAU, TYLER DANIELS, DAVID
BONK, AARON CLELAND, JEFFREY GREENE, BLAKE GRAHAM, ANTHONY TACTI,
VERDON NICHOLS, RYAN KNOSPE, THOMAS GUMKOWSKI, BRIAN HOORNBEEK,
CLIFTON COLE, and All similarly situated Corrections Officers
formerly employed by the New York State Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Case
No. 1:25-cv-00468 (W.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) concerns the Defendants'
unlawful interference with and relation against Plaintiffs and
similarly situated corrections officers for using and exercising
their legal rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The action arises from the Defendants' unilateral, systematic, and
blanket termination of the employment and employment benefits of
corrections officers using and exercising their FMLA-protected
leave rights, Defendants' interference with, restriction of, and
denial of corrections officers' exercise and attempts to exercise
their FMLA-protected rights, and Defendants' adverse employment
actions and retaliation against corrections officers for exercising
and attempting to exercise their lawful rights under the FMLA.
The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including but not limited
actual damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation
costs, and interest pursuant to the FMLA and controlling law, and
(2) injunctive relief, including but not limited to the
reinstatement of Plaintiffs' employment and all employment and
health benefits pursuant to the FMLA and controlling law. PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Eric Daugherty is a New York resident and a former
corrections officer employed by Defendants.
Plaintiff Daugherty has been employed at Groveland Correctional
Facility since 2011, and has been employed by DOCCS since 2007. On
March 3, 2025, the Defendants notified him that Defendants
terminated his health benefits and that he was ineligible for
health benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act.
On March 10, 2025, the Defendants notified Daugherty that
Defendants terminated his employment.
The Defendants include NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, KATHY HOCHUL, Governor of the State of New
York, in her official and personal capacity, DANIEL MARTUSCELLO
III, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision, in his official and personal capacity,
JAIFA COLLADO, Executive Deputy Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, in her
official and personal capacity, DARREN AYOTTE, Deputy Commissioner
for Administrative Services of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision, in his official and personal
capacity, ANDREW BOYD, Superintendent of Adirondack Correctional
Facility, in his official and personal capacity, MELINDA SAMUELSON,
Superintendent of Albion Correctional Facility, in her official and
personal capacity, STANLEY BARTON, Superintendent of Altona
Correctional Facility, in his official and personal capacity, JULIE
WOLCOTT, Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, in her
official and personal capacity, THOMAS NAPOLI, Superintendent of
Auburn Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, DENNIS BRADFORD, Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional
Facility, in his official and personal capacity, EILEEN RUSSELL,
Superintendent of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, in her
official and personal capacity, MARCIA CLEVELAND, Superintendent of
Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, in her official and personal
capacity, THOMAS GEE, Superintendent of Cayuga Correctional
Facility, in his official and personal capacity, MARIE JOSEE KING,
Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, in her official
and personal capacity, LEANNE LATONA, Superintendent of Collins
Correctional Facility, in her official and personal capacity,
BROOKE BLAISE, Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility,
in her official and personal capacity, LYNN LILLEY, Superintendent
of Eastern Correctional Facility, in her official and personal
capacity, SEIVERIGHT MILLER, Superintendent of Edgecomb Residential
Treatment Facility, in his official and personal capacity, KEVIN
MCCARTHY, Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, in his
official and personal capacity, MICHAEL DAYE, Superintendent of
Fishkill Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, REGINALD BISHOP, Superintendent of Five Points
Correctional Facility, in his official and personal capacity,
SANDRA DANFORTH, Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility,
in her official and personal capacity, MARK ROCKWOOD,
Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility, in his official
and personal capacity, MARK MILLER, Superintendent of Green Haven
Correctional Facility, in his official and personal capacity, AARON
TORRES, Superintendent of Greene Correctional Facility, in his
official and personal capacity, JOEY CLINTON, Superintendent of
Groveland Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, RACHEL YOUNG, Superintendent of Hale Creek ASACTC, in her
official and personal capacity, STEPHEN BRANDOW, Superintendent of
Hudson Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, ANDREA SCHNEIDER, Superintendent of Lakeview Shock
Correctional Facility, in her official and personal capacity,
BENNIE THORP, Superintendent of Marcy Correctional Facility, in his
official and personal capacity, BRYAN HILTON, Superintendent of
Mid-State Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, ALFRED MONTEGARI, Superintendent of Mohawk Correctional
Facility, in his official and personal capacity, AMY COOK,
Superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility, in her official
and personal capacity, DELTA BAROMETRE, Superintendent of Otisville
Correctional Facility, in her official and personal capacity, LINDA
CARRINGTON-ALLEN, Superintendent of Queensboro Correctional
Facility, in her official and personal capacity, BRIAN MCAULIFFE,
Superintendent of Riverview Correctional Facility, in his official
and personal capacity, JOHN WOOD, acting Superintendent of
Shawangunk Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, MARLYN KOPP, Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional
Facility, in her official and personal capacity, EMILY WILLIAMS,
Superintendent of Taconic Correctional Facility, in her official
and personal capacity, STACIE BENNETT, Superintendent of Ulster
Correctional Facility, in her official and personal capacity,
DONALD UHLER, Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, in
his official and personal capacity, PHIL MELECIO, Superintendent of
Wallkill Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, CHRISTOPHER COLLINS, Superintendent of Washington
Correctional Facility, in his official and personal capacity,
CHRISTOPHER YEHL, Superintendent of Wende Correctional Facility, in
his official and personal capacity, DAVID HOWARD Superintendent of
Woodbourne Correctional Facility, in his official and personal
capacity, And MICHAEL HILL, Superintendent of Wyoming Correctional
Facility, in his official and personal capacity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Ritter, Jr., Esq.
Steven W. Klutkowski., Esq.
DUKE HOLZMAN PHOTIADIS & RITTER LLP
701 Seneca Street, Suite 750
Buffalo, NY 14210
Telephone: (716) 855-1111
E-mail: critter@dukeholzman.com
sklutkowski@dukeholzman.com
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Plumlee Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Plumlee, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV005757 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 2,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01538-DAD-CSK.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action,
including: Failure to Pay Regular and/or Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to
Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements Failure to Reimburse
Business Expenses; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; and
Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Peterson, Esq.
Edwin M. Boniske, Esq.
HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
401 West A Street, Suite 2600
San Diego, California 92101-7910
Phone: (619) 236-1551
Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
Email: peterson@higgslaw.com
boniske@higgslaw.com
OAKLAND COUNTY: Fails to Pay Employees' Overtime, Mance Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MANCE, JAMES WILLYWARD, and TODD ZAMARIPPA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OAKLAND
COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-11612-LJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 30, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as non-exempt workers.
Oakland County is a domestic municipal corporation in Michigan.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lisa C. Walinske, Esq.
GREGORY, MOORE, BROOKS, CLARK & HELTON, PC
28 W. Adams, Ste. 300
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 964-5600
Email: lisa@unionlaw.net
ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Devers Sues Over Data Security Incident
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Devers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY, LLC dba ONSITE WOMEN'S HEALTH, Case
No. 3:25-cv-30079-KAR (D. Mass., April 30, 2025), is brought
arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach
that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which
held in its possession certain personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the
"Private Information") of Plaintiff and more than 350,0001 current
and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members
("Class").
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks
left that property in a dangerous condition.
The Defendant, through its employees, disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by, among other things, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions. Defendant also failed to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and
security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information and failed to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach.
Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been
exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity
theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future
closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out of pocket
costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit
freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and
detect identity theft. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to
remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data
Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to the
Defendants.
The Defendant Onsite is the "leading provider of in-office breast
health and imaging services."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
53 State Street, Ste. 500
Boston, MA 02109
Phone (617) 913-0363
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (888) 350-3931
Fax: (888) 276-3455
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
ONTRAK INC: Jones Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ontrak, Inc. The case
is styled as Arthur Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00327-AWA-LRL
(E.D. Va., June 2, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Ontrak, Inc. -- https://ontrakhealth.com/ -- operates as a
value-based behavioral healthcare company in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clinton Wes Verity, Esq.
FRIEDMAN FISHER VERITY, PLLC
125 S. 14th St., Suite 120
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 602-7388
Fax: (804) 602-7768
Email: cverity@ffvlaw.com
PAKT INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pakt, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06063 (N.D. Ill., May 30,
2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, Paktbags.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Paktbags.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Pakt.
Yet, Paktbags.com contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website.
In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website.
Thus, Pakt excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full
and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is
increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily
living, asserts the suit.
In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive
computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of
everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to
fully and independently access a variety of services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
PEPSICO INC: Faces Reyes Suit Over Popcorners' Slack-Fill Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC., d/b/a POPCORNERS, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-04951 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of California Unfair
Competition Law, California's Business and Professions Code, and
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Sea Salt
Popcorners, a popped corn snack product. According to the
complaint, the Defendant deceptively sells the product in oversized
packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that it is over
half empty. The Defendant markets the product in a systematically
misleading manner by representing it as adequately filled when, in
fact, it contains an unlawful amount of empty space or
"slack-fill." Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers
known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would
not have paid a price premium for it.
PepsiCo, Inc., doing business as Popcorners, is a manufacturer of
snack products, with its principal place of business located in
Purchase, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
PHOENIX INVESTMENT: Building Property Violates ADA, Cheli Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual v. PHOENIX INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, a
New Jersey Limited Liability Company, & TNSL LAMBERT INC., a New
Jersey Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-06128 (D.N.J., May 29, 2025)
is a class action complaint brought by Ms. Cheli, on her own behalf
and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired
persons seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Ms. Cheli is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming mobility
impaired (and having to fully rely on the use of her wheelchair to
ambulate) she has dedicated her life to the elimination of
accessibility discrimination so that she, and others like her, may
have full and equal enjoyment of all public accommodations without
fear of discrimination and repeated exposure to architectural
barriers.
Accordingly, Ms. Cheli encounters architectural barriers at many of
the places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural
features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are
taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed
or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in
wheelchair, says the suit.
The Defendant owns/operates a place of public accommodation, a
restaurant known as Sidelines East Sports Bar & Grill, alleged by
the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA
and the LAD.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
2220 N. East Avenue
Vineland, NJ 08360
Telephone: (609) 319-5399
E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com
PLASTIC SURGERY: Thompson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Plastic Surgery
Center, P.A. The case is styled as Kyana Thompson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Plastic Surgery
Center, P.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-03548-MAS-JTQ (D.N.J., April 30,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The Plastic Surgery Center in New Jersey, New York & Pennsylvania
provides exceptional cosmetic and reconstructive surgery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 228-9898
Email: mrm@mazieslater.com
POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Angulo Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as George Angulo, Abigail Angulo, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Safeco Insurance
Company of Indiana, Case No. 5:24-cv-00182 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 2, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00580-ALM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
Safeco Insurance -- http://www.safeco.com/-- a member of Liberty
Mutual Group is an American insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES
110 West Vine Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (800) 614-1957
Email: erik@eplo.law
- and -
James Brandon McWherter, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC
109 Westpark Dr., Ste. 260
Brentwood, TN 37027
Phone: (615) 354-1144
Fax: (731) 664-1540
Email: brandon@msb.law
- and -
Thomas Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
100 South Fifth Street, Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 448-2600
Email: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
- and -
Shaun Wesley Hodge, Esq.
HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC
1301 Market Street
Galveston, TX 77550
Phone: (409) 763-5000
Fax: (409) 763-2300
Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David T Moran, Esq.
Michael James Murtha, Esq.
Christopher Andrew Thompson, Esq.
Maggie Irene Burreson, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER LLP - DALLAS
2323 Ross Ave., Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 953-6051
Fax: (214) 661-6677
Email: dmoran@jw.com
mmurtha@jw.com
cthompson@jw.com
mburreson@jw.com
- and -
Marilyn Marie Brown, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER LLP - AUSTIN
100 Congress Ave., Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 236-2000
Fax: (512) 236-2002
Email: mbrown@jw.com
POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Dwyer Suit Transferred to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Johnielle Dwyer; Erica Laton, on behalf of
herself and as parent and guardian of her minor children, E.L. and
S.S.; Maria Krantz, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian
of her minor child, F.K.; Brittany Mansi, on behalf of herself and
as parent and guardian of her minor child, J.M.; Kristin Logan, on
behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child,
J.L.; Mary Hall, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of
her minor child D.B.; Racheal Paradiso, on behalf of herself and as
parent and guardian of her minor children, R.H., A.H.; Christopher
Andrews, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00671 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
May 30, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01373 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative
K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational
outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian Wise Sloss, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Phone: (203) 325-4491
Fax: (203) 325-3769
Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com
PREMIUM VELOCITY: Lumley Seeks General Managers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH LUMLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM VELOCITY AUTO, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-02524 (S.D. Tex., May 30, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a general manager
since June 1, 2024.
Premium Velocity Auto, LLC is a company that owns and operates
Jiffy Lube franchise locations throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
marty@sagwlaw.com
- and -
Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
ERBE LAW FIRM
2501 Grand Avenue, First Floor
Des Moines, IA 50312
Telephone: (515) 281-1460
Facsimile: (515) 384-0084
Email: harleyerbe@erbelaw.com
QAHWAH HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. QAHWAH HOUSE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04663 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.qahwahhouse.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Aug. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase coffee. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, Plaintiff
was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an
unimpeded shopping experience.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, asserts the
suit.
The Website also contained a host of broken links, which is a
hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. For the visually
impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to
navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a
broken link is encountered, the suit adds.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers
features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access
navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail
consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
QUALITY FOOD: Meza Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DEL PILAR PEREZ MEZA, JORGE MACUIL, and ADRIANA JUAREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
QUALITY FOOD BEST QUALITY GOOD HANDS LLC d/b/a FLORIDIAN PLAZA
DINER, ESSAM BASSYONI, MICHAEL MOUDATSOS, and HASSAN E. OSMAN,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-03010 (E.D.N.Y., May 29,
2025) alleges that the Plaintiffs were not paid the applicable New
York State minimum wage for all hours worked and were not paid
overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover overtime premium pay
owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid minimum wages, spread
of hours premiums, for unpaid "gap-time" wages, unreimbursed
uniform purchase expenses, and for failure to provide proper wage
notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting
regulations.
The Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees of Defendants and their NYLL
claims on behalf of themselves and a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 class of all non-management employees working for
Defendants in New York during the six year period preceding the
filing of this complaint, plus 228-day COVID-19 tolling period
instituted by the Governor of New York in several Executive Orders
between March and October 2020.
The Plaintiffs are former non-management restaurant employees of
Defendants who worked at the Floridian Plaza Diner during the
relevant time period of this complaint.
The Defendant is the successor entity operating a long-time diner
located at 2301 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, New York City, which was
initially opened in or around 1972.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
www.peltongraham.com
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
RB GLOBAL: Enterprise Lodging Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENTERPRISE LODGING OF HUNTSVILLE, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC., ROUSE
SERVICES LLC, ROUSE ANALYTICS LLC, UNITED RENTALS, INC., UNITED
RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC., HERC HOLDINGS, INC., HERC RENTALS
INC., SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES INC., SUNSTATE
EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00823 (D. Conn., May 23, 2025) arises from Defendants'
alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize rental
prices for various pieces of rental equipment and tools used for
construction, manufacturing, entertainment, and other industries
from at least as early as March 31, 2021, until Defendants'
unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist.
As part of their services, Defendants RB Global and Rouse collect
and distribute confidential and competitively sensitive data from
United, Sunbelt, Herc, H&E, Sunstate, and Home Depot, and other
rental rental equipment providers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now
brings this class action complaint against Defendants for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and violations
of common law.
Headquartered in Beverly, CA, Rouse Analytics provides analytical
and benchmarking services to the equipment rental companies in
North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Slossberg, Esq.
Timothy C. Cowan, Esq.
Julie V. Pinette, Esq.
HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
135 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone: (203) 877-8000
E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
TCowan@hssklaw.com
JPinette@hssklaw.com
- and -
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Kira Q. Le, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
kqle@locklaw.com
- and -
Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 456-7701
E-mail: sjteti@locklaw.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
John M. Shaw, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
jshaw@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes Ave NE, Suite 100
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
(256) 513-7489
E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com
artrip@mastandoartrip.com
RDA WIRELESS: Hladis Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HLADIS, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. RDA WIRELESS INC., D.R. WIRELESS, INC., AWS
KHAMIS, and DANNY MANSOUR, Case No. 2:25-cv-11621-LVP-EAS (E.D.
Mich., May 30, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed and paid by Defendant RDA Wireless Inc.,
from around March 2023 to March 2024.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring this suit as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on his own behalf as well as
those in the following Collective:
All non-exempt sales associates employed by Defendants from three
years prior to the filing of this complaint through the final date
of disposition of this action, who are or were required to work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek without compensation at the
statutorily required rate of one and a half times their hourly rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
RDA WIRELESS INC. is a telecommunication company based in Michigan.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly A. Magnuson, Esq.
HARDING MAZZOTTI, LLP
2000 Town Center Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (518) 556-3402
E-mail: Kelly.Magnuson@1800law1010.com
REGENTS OF UC: Tang Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Weijing Tang, and others similarly situated
v. The Regents of the University of California (UC); Dr. Ellen
Lumpkin, in her official capacity as Head Graduate Advisor of the
Molecular and Cell Biology Dept., University of California,
Berkeley; Dr. Matthew Welch, in his official capacity as Co-Chair
of the Molecular and Cell Biology Dept., University of California,
Berkeley; Dr. Rebecca Heald, in her official capacity as Co-Chair
of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Dept., University of
California, Berkeley; Carina Galicia, in her official capacity as
Director of the Student Services of the Molecular and Cellular
Biology Dept., University of California, Berkeley, Case No.
2:25-cv-01494 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on May 30,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04568-DMR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
The University of California --
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ -- is the world's leading
public research university system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faith M. Hashemi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FAITH HASHEMI
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (408) 455-2330
Email: fh.esquire@gmail.com
- and -
James Arrasmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH
9719 Lincoln Village Drive, Ste. 506
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: (916) 704-3009
Email: jarrasmith@pm.me
ROYAL BANK: Faces Moeller Suit Over Unlawful Cash Sweep Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
REGIS J. MOELLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA and RBC
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04512 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligent
misrepresentations and omissions, violation of New York General
Business Law, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful practice of sweeping
idle customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at banks selected
by, and affiliated with, the Defendants under their cash sweep
programs. The Defendants used the Insured Deposit Program (IDP) to
enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to
customers, breaching their fiduciary duties, contractual
obligations, and violating New York law.
Royal Bank of Canada is a financial services company, headquartered
in Toronto, Ontario.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC is a broker-dealer with headquarters in
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
Andrew T. Rees, Esq.
Scott I. Dion, Esq.
Alex Kaplan, Esq.
Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Email: sastley@rgrdlaw.com
arees@rgrdlaw.com
sdion@rgrdlaw.com
akaplan@rgrdlaw.com
rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Alexander Boies, Esq.
Marc Ayala, Esq.
Jack Wilson, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
Email: dboies@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
mayala@bsfllp.com
jwilson@bsfllp.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., PC
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
Email: yateslaw@aol.com
RUBBISH REMOVAL: Hawkins Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE HAWKINS, KEIWHA JETER, and HANEEF MAVIN, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
F. BASSO, JR. RUBBISH REMOVAL, INC. and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by F. BASSO, JR. RUBBISH REMOVAL,
INC. and/or DAVID BASSO, v. F. BASSO, JR. RUBBISH REMOVAL, INC.
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by F.
BASSO, JR. RUBBISH REMOVAL, INC., and DAVID BASSO, Case No.
2:25-cv-06336 (D.N.J., May 30, 2025) seeks to recover earned but
unpaid overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiffs and members of
the putative class for residential and commercial waste collection
work that they performed while employed by the Defendants pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, beginning May 2019 and continuing to
the present the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of
requiring members of the putative class to regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation, as
required by applicable federal and New Jersey state law.
The Defendant is an active carrier in Irvington, New Jersey. The
Company transports garbage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack L Newhouse, Esq.
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com
mmoreno@vandallp.com
asakovits@vandallp.com
RUFFOLO & HOOPER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ochoa Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GARCIA OCHOA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RUFFOLO, HOOPER & ASSOCIATES, M.D., P.A., and
PHYSICIANS INDEPENDENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No.
8:25-cv-01385 (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit
on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendants with
sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health
Information and that was impacted in a data breach that the
Defendants publicly disclosed in May 2025.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendants' failure to
properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was
entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store
and transfer that information.
On Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendants RHA and PIMS received notification
that NRS experienced an incident that may have impacted information
related to Defendants RHA and PIMS clients.2 8. Following an
investigation into the Data Breach, it was determined that the
following types of Private Information were impacted: name,
address, Social Security number, date of birth, gender, facility
name, date of service, insurance carrier name, and/or insurance
policy number.
On May 21, 2025, Defendant RHA and PIMS issued a notice of public
disclosure and began sending notice letters to individuals’
impacted by the Data Breach.
Accordingly, the Defendants failed to take precautions designed to
keep individuals' Private Information secure. 11. Defendants owed
Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and
necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe
and secure from unauthorized access. Defendants solicited,
collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private
Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or
maintain adequate security practices.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants’
inadequate data security practices.
RHA is a physician-owned medical practice providing comprehensive
anatomic and clinical pathology services throughout the state of
Florida.
PIMS is a provider of comprehensive medical billing and practice
management services to medical providers.
The Defendants both are clients of the third-party vendor,
Nationwide Recovery Services (NRS).
The Defendants had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and
common law duties and obligations, including those based on its
affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep
their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected
from unauthorized disclosure or access.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
SCHAEFFLER GROUP: Italiano Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC ITALIANO, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA INC., SCHAEFFLER TRANSMISSION LLC,
and LUK USA LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01116 (N.D. Ohio, May 30, 2025)
seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio law by failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours
actually worked. The action is intended to include each and every
hourly paid employee who performed services on behalf of Defendants
during the three years prior to the date of the filing of this
Complaint to the present.
SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA INC. is a global automotive and industrial
supplier business located in Wooster, Ohio,[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 318-4496
E-mail: casay@hkm.com
SECURITY SERVICES: Mossiah Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
LENEISJE MOSSIAH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITY SERVICES HOLDINGS, LLC
d/b/a MULLIGAN SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04561
(S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification ("WARN") Act and the New York State WARN Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the
employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a
result of a mass layoff effective November 24, 2024, without
providing adequate advance notice as required by the federal WARN
Act and New York WARN Act.
Security Services Holdings, LLC, doing business as Mulligan
Security, is a provider of security services based in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Rissmiller, Esq.
Jazly Liriano, Esq.
RISSMILLER PLLC
5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (646) 664-1412
Email: arissmiller@rissmiller.com
jliriano@rissmiller.com
SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Attorneys Investigate 2025 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Sensata data
breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
Sensata Security Incident: What Happened?
Sensata Technologies, Inc., a global industrial technology company
known for manufacturing sensors and electrical protection
components, is notifying employees and other individuals about an
early 2025 data breach. On April 6, 2025, the company discovered
that certain servers were encrypted with ransomware. Sensata
Technologies implemented response protocols, contained the
activity, and launched an investigation with the help of a
cybersecurity firm.
The data breach was found to involve unauthorized access to the
network between March 28 and April 6, 2025, during which files were
accessed and obtained. By May 23, 2025, Sensata determined that
some of these files might have contained sensitive information such
as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, tax identification
numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, financial
details, medical and health insurance information, and dates of
birth.
Notice letters about the Sensata Technologies data breach state
that the company had recipients' information because they were a
current or former employee, dependent of a current or former
employee, or otherwise related to the business.
On April 9, 2025, Sensata Technologies disclosed the incident in an
8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
What You Can Do
If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want
to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit
to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing
with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force Sensata to ensure it takes
proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. [GN]
SOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY: Sherman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern California
Public Safety LLC. The case is styled as David Sherman, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Southern California
Public Safety LLC d/b/a SOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY, Case No. 25STCV16025
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 2, 2025).
California Public Safety is a customer service dedicated private
security company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 590-5550
Fax: (562) 590-8400
Email: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
SOUTHERN COLORADO: Sena Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH SENA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN COLORADO WASTE AND RECYCLING LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-01739 (D. Colo., June 3, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as well as
seeks unpaid straight time and overtime wages pursuant to Colorado
Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Wage Rules and Regulations.
According to the complaint, although Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to
work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the
Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at
least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Likewise, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully
compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked.
During the relevant time period, SOCO Waste knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the
proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis.
Plaintiff Sena brings this action, individually and on behalf of
all current and former hourly Drivers, who worked for
Defendant—Southern Colorado Waste and Recycling LLC -- anywhere
in the United States, at any time during the relevant statutes of
limitations.
The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members are those
similarly situated persons who worked for SOCO Waste at any time
during the relevant statutes of limitations through the final
disposition of this matter, and have not been paid for all hours
worked, nor the correct amount of wages, including overtime, in
violation of state and federal law.
SOCO Waste is a full-service solid waste company providing waste
collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial,
industrial, and residential customers throughout the Colorado
Springs area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 North Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
STARFACE WORLD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, DelaCruz Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. STARFACE WORLD, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04551
(S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) alleges that Down Right failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://starface.world, is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant operates the Starface World online retail store, as
well as the Starface World interactive Website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SULLIVAN AUTOMOTIVE: Sales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sullivan Automotive
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Henrique Sales, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sullivan
Automotive Group, LLC, Case No. 25STCV15922 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 30, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
The Sullivan Auto Group -- https://www.shopsullivanauto.com/ -- is
one of the largest & fastest-growing automotive dealer groups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noam Glick, Esq.
GLICK LAW GROUP
225 Broadway, Ste. 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-5047
Phone: 619-382-3400
Email: noam@glicklawgroup.com
- and -
Marc Phelps, Esq.
THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
23 Corporate Plaza Dr., Ste. 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7908
Phone: 949-234-8514
Fax: 949-629-2501
Email: marc@phelpslawgroup.com
SUMMUS MEDICAL LASER: Flowers Mill Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summus Medical Laser,
LLC. The case is styled as Flowers Mill Veterinary Hospital, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Summus Medical Laser, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00602 (M.D. Tenn., May
28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Summus Lasers -- https://summuslaser.com/ -- provide targeted
support for temporary pain relief, mobility improvement, and
overall wellness.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Dexilant Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS STATIONARY ENGINEERS
LOCAL 39 HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, and NANCY REHNS v. TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A.,
INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., TWI PHARMACEUTICALS
INC., and TWI PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04547
(N.D. Cal., May 29, 2025) is an antitrust action seeking damages to
address the Defendants' anticompetitive horizontal conspiracy to
delay generic competition for the prescription drug Dexilant
(active ingredient: dexlansoprazole).
The Defendants, who are rival pharmaceutical companies, engaged in
a coordinated effort to limit competition in the market for
Dexilant and its generic versions through a "reverse payment" and
market allocation agreement.
The Dexilant is used to treat erosive esophagitis and symptoms of
gastroesophageal reflux disease. Since 2009, Takeda has marketed
branded Dexilant in the U.S., earning billions in revenue. Starting
in 2010, generic pharmaceutical companies began submitting
applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain
approval to sell generic versions of Dexilant to compete with
Takeda's branded product.
Takeda initiated legal action in the Northern District of
California to prevent this competition, asserting that these
generic companies would infringe on one or more of its patents for
the drug. Takeda and TWi consented to the district court's personal
jurisdiction. Takeda's lawsuits against generic manufacturers TWi,
Par, and Impax were combined and went to trial in June 2013.
TWi was found to have infringed a single patent -- United States
Patent No. 7,737,282 (the '282 patent) -- which was set to expire
on June 15, 2020. 4. TWi had strong grounds to have its trial
victories upheld and its loss regarding the '282 patent overturned
at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
During oral arguments in March 2015, one of the judges on the panel
suggested that Judge Spero had made a reversible error by
concluding that the '282 patent was valid and not anticipated or
made obvious by prior art.
The Plaintiff is located in Sacramento, California and was
established for the purpose of providing benefits to thousands of
union members and their dependents. As a third-party payor of
pharmaceutical claims for its members and their dependents, the
Local 39 Fund is an end-payor for brand and generic Dexilant and
was thereby injured as a result of Defendants' unlawful behavior.
Takeda is a ]pharmaceutical company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
It was founded in 1781 and is known for its research and
development in areas like oncology, gastroenterology, and
vaccines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Dugan, Esq.
David S. Scalia, Esq.
Monica M. Vela-Vick, Esq.
Fortune A. Dugan, Jr., Esq.
THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
365 Canal Street
One Canal Place, Suite 1000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 648-0180
Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
E-mail: jdugan@dugan- awfirm.com
dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
monica@dugan-lawfirm.com
fa@dugan-lawfirm.com
- and -
Schirripa, Esq.
Scott Jacobsen, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
TECO ENERGY: Court Dismisses Roche's Amended ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the
motion filed by TECO Energy, Inc., and TECO Energy Group Retirement
Plan to dismiss the first amended complaint in Roche v. TECO
Energy, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-01571-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.).
This development followed the Court's August 28, 2024, dismissal of
the original complaint with leave to amend. The original complaint
alleged that TECO failed to disclose the method for calculating
lump sum benefits in the Summary Plan Description (SPD), allegedly
in breach of their fiduciary duty under Section 404 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Court found this did
not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint
reframed the claim, alleging a broader duty to disclose information
about the impact of rising interest rates on lump sum benefits.
Plaintiff Alejandro Roche, a TECO employee for approximately 33
years until December 2, 2022, was a participant in TECO's pension
plan and "grandfathered" into an older formula for calculating
benefits. Grandfathered participants could choose between a life
annuity or a lump sum payment. Roche elected the lump sum.
In 2022, Roche informed his supervisor of his intent to retire
after his 65th birthday on August 26, 2022. On September 26, 2022,
he submitted a retirement application, selecting December 2, 2022,
as his last workday. Earlier that month, he requested an estimate
of his pension benefits but submitted his application before
receiving a response. TECO then sent three letters estimating lump
sum benefits for different payment dates:
December 1, 2022: $482,970.55
January 1, 2023: $396,600.67
February 1, 2023: $395,997.89
After receiving these estimates, Roche requested a December 1,
2022, retirement date, but TECO adhered to its SPD policy requiring
retirement applications to be submitted at least 90 days before the
benefit start date. Consequently, Roche received his lump sum in
January 2023, approximately $82,000 less than the December 2022
estimate.
Roche also inquired about the methodology for calculating lump sum
benefits, which the SPD did not detail. TECO explained it used a
"look-back" method based on segment interest rates from August of
the prior year. Lump sum amounts have an inverse relationship with
interest rates: higher rates result in lower lump sums. Roche
alleged that TECO, aware of rising interest rates through its
actuarial firm, failed to warn him and other grandfathered
participants that taking lump sums in 2023 would yield
significantly less than in 2022. He noted that Ford Motor Company
issued such a warning to its employees in September 2022.
The amended complaint shifted focus from the SPD to a broader
breach of fiduciary duty claim, asserting that TECO had a duty to
notify participants of material information to protect their
interests. Specifically, Roche claimed TECO breached this duty by
failing to warn class members in 2022 that rising interest rates
would reduce lump sum payments in 2023 compared to 2022. Roche
argued this was not about individualized advice but a general
obligation to warn, as Ford had done, to prevent significant
financial loss.
TECO moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing it failed to
address the defects identified in the Court's prior order. The
Court had allowed amendment only if Roche could allege
misrepresentations, misleading communications, or interactions
showing TECO was aware of his misunderstanding of benefits. TECO
contended the amended complaint did not meet this standard.
TECO argued that allegations about its actuarial firm were
irrelevant, as the Court had already ruled there is no general
fiduciary duty to explain the inverse relationship between interest
rates and lump sums, a universal actuarial principle. When Roche
inquired about the calculation methodology, TECO promptly provided
accurate information. TECO also distinguished Ford's actions,
noting Ford's unique context of significant downsizing and that one
company's actions do not establish a fiduciary duty for others.
The Court held that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
complaint must state short and plain statement of the plausible
claim for relief with sufficient factual matter. ERISA imposes a
fiduciary duty on plan administrators to act solely in
participants' interests for providing benefits and managing plan
expenses. Common law and Eleventh Circuit precedent recognize a
fiduciary's duty to inform, including a negative duty not to
misinform and an affirmative duty to disclose when silence could be
harmful.
Roche advanced two theories for TECO's affirmative duty to disclose
unrequested information. First, he argued his communications with
TECO indicated his confusion about the plan, triggering a duty to
clarify. Second, he claimed TECO had a proactive duty to warn
participants of circumstances, like rising interest rates, that
could reduce benefits.
The Court found Roche's allegations about confusion insufficient. A
fiduciary's duty to inform arises only when they know their silence
could be harmful, typically due to known participant confusion from
misrepresentations or silence. Roche's confusion was resolved only
after it was too late to change his retirement date, but TECO was
not notified of his misunderstanding until after the 90-day
application deadline had passed. The Court noted that ERISA case
law requires fiduciaries to address known confusion but does not
impose liability when the confusion is discovered too late, as
here.
The Court opined that Roche's revised claim argued that ERISA
fiduciaries must proactively warn participants of circumstances
reducing benefits, citing cases where fiduciaries failed to
disclose critical plan changes. The Court found these cases
inapplicable, as they involved fiduciaries on notice of a specific
need to disclose due to participant inquiries or plan changes.
Here, TECO had no such notice, and the Court rejected a blanket
duty to anticipate participants' retirement timing and benefit
elections to warn about interest rate impacts.
The Court found that parties complied with Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure throughout the action. It declined to
expand ERISA fiduciary duties to require proactive warnings about
interest rate effects absent specific notice of participant
confusion or need for disclosure. The Court added the amended
complaint lacked allegations of misrepresentations, misleading
communications, or circumstances putting TECO on notice of a
disclosure obligation. Thus, it failed to state a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty under ERISA Section 404(a).
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pxX3Cg
TEMPUS AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Tempus AI, Inc. (NASDAQ: TEM) resulting from
allegations that Tempus AI may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tempus AI securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39867 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 28, 2025, before the market opened,
Investing.com published an article entitled "Tempus AI stock sinks
following Spruce Point short report." The article stated Tempus AI
shares had fallen after "the company was targeted in a short-seller
report by Spruce Point. The report raised serious concerns about
the integrity of Tempus AI's product, the credibility of its
management, and its financial reporting practices."
On this news, Tempus AI's stock fell 19.2% on May 28, 2025.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by
ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TENCENT AMERICA: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Milito, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TENCENT AMERICA LLC, a foreign
limited liability company doing business as TIMI STUDIO GROUP;
TENCENT CLOUD LLC, a foreign limited liability company; PROXIMA
BETA U.S. LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business
as PROXIMA BETA US; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington
entities, Case No. 25 2-13227 7 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of Washington for King County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on June 2, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01042.
On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed in King County Superior Court a
"Class Action Complaint for Discrimination," alleging that the
Defendants violated the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act,
("EPOA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Emily J. Harris, Esq.
CORR CRONIN LLP
1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10
Seattle, WA 98104-1001
Phone: (206) 625-8600
Fax: (206) 625-0900
Email: eharris@corrcronin.com
- and -
Michael S. Shuster, Esq.
Blair E. Kaminsky, Esq.
HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
425 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 837-5151
Fax: (646) 837-5150
Email: mshuster@hsgllp.com
bkaminsky@hsgllp.com
THOMAS GUASTELLO: Hotel Non-Compliant With ADA, Foster Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LELAND FOSTER v. THOMAS GUASTELLO, Case No. 2:25-cv-11622-JEL-KGA
(E.D. Mich., May 30, 2025) is a class action complaint against the
Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Accordingly, the individual Plaintiff, and all others similarly
situated will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and
damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA.
The Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's hotel and business
previously as a place of public accommodation.
The hotel owned and operated by the Defendant underwent extensive
renovation and alteration by the Defendant (or its predecessor)
completed in 2010 and is non-compliant with the remedial provisions
of the ADA for newly designed and constructed or altered
facilities, asserts the suit.
Leland Foster is an Ohio resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as
an individual with disability as defined by the ADA.
The Defendant Thomas Guastello operates and owns a Comfort Inn
Utica located at 11401 Hall Rd, Utica, MI 48317 in Macomb
County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR.
The Offices of Unit C
6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (419) 241-9661
Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
Monroe, MI (734) 240-0848
E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Malainy Sues Over Tacoma Vehicles' Brake Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE MALAINY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex., May 30, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, negligent design defect, fraud by
omission/concealment, unjust enrichment, and negligence.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing,
advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of Toyota Tacoma
vehicles. According to the complaint, the Class vehicles have
malfunctions regarding their braking systems. The Plaintiff alleges
that the rear brake lines would be damaged by mud and dirt build up
in the lines that potentially cause brake failure. The Defendant
also recalled its 2024-2025 Tacoma 4-wheel drive models due to the
brake defect. The recall is wholly inadequate and does not address
the underlying cause mandating the recall, nor will it restore the
value of the Plaintiff's vehicle, suit says. As a result of the
Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers suffered damages.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer,
with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rusty M. Messer, Esq.
BIG RIVER TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4626 Sherwood Common Blvd., Suite 302
Telephone: (225) 963-9638
Facsimile: (225) 384-6762
Email: rusty@BigRiverLaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
UB RENTAL: Seerag Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Seerag, individually and on behalfof others similarly situated
v. UB HOUSE LLC., UB RENTAL LLC., AND CORNERSTONE HEIGHTS, LLC, and
ELLIOT BROWAR, DEAN J. SEGAL, and MARLON BROWAR, Case No.
2:25-cv-02402-EK-ST (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025), is brought for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of
Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants for approximately 1.5
years. He was paid $300 and routinely worked between 12 to 16 hours
a day including Saturdays and holidays. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendants in of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
they worked.
Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff the required 'spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and Other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker and handyman.
The Defendants own, operate, various properties supporting student
housing in the greater University Heights market area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allan W, Jennings, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN W. JENNINGS, JR., ESQ.
42-40 Bell Blvd, Suite 601
Bayside, NY 11361
Phone: (917) 692-9790
UNITED STATES: Gutierrez Challenges Civil Immigration Detention
---------------------------------------------------------------
YAMIL LUNA GUTIERREZ, Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba; RAFAEL ANGEL LOPEZ OCON Naval Station Guantanamo Bay
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Plaintiffs-Petitioners, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KRISTI NOEM,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her
official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01766 (D.D.C., June 4,
2025) challenges the government's detention of civil immigration
detainees at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cub.
The Plaintiffs and the proposed class members are noncitizens held
in civil detention at Guantanamo under the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
According to the complaint, they were detained at immigration
detention facilities inside the United States. But instead of
continuing to detain them there while making arrangements to
effectuate their removal, the government has flown them hundreds of
miles away to detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for no
legitimate purpose.
At Guantanamo, the Plaintiffs are surrounded by military officials,
deprived of in-person contact with legal counsel, and subject to
punitive conditions of confinement, including in facilities
previously used by the military to hold law-of-war detainees.
The Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of themselves and a
similarly situated class of:
"All immigration detainees originally apprehended and detained
in the United States, and who are, or will be held at Naval
Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
The Plaintiffs do not challenge the government's authority to
detain them on U.S. soil or to directly remove them to their home
country or to another statutorily authorized country. What they
challenge is the government's unprecedented and unlawful decision
to hold them in a detention facility at Guantanamo-- which, under
the INA, and for purposes of the application of that statute, is
not the United States immigration detention outside the United
States is straightforwardly illegal under the statute. Moreover,
the government’s use of Guantánamo for immigration detention is
arbitrary and capricious, lacks any legitimate purpose, and imposes
punitive detention conditions on immigration detainees in violation
of their constitutional rights, asserts the suit.
The Defendants include U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD
LYONS, Acting Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of
the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his
official capacity, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; PETE
HEGSETH, Secretary of Defense, in his official capacity, and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, in his
official capacity and U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Respondents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eunice H. Cho, Esq.
My Khanh Ngo, Esq.
Kyle Virgien, Esq.
Noelle Smith, Esq.
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Lee Gelernt, Esq.
Brett Max Kaufman, Esq.
Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
Noor Zafar, Esq.
Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
915 15th Street, NW, 7th floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 546-6616
E-mail: echo@aclu.org
mngo@aclu.org
kvirgien@aclu.org
nsmith@aclu.org
aspitzer@acludc.org
smichelman@acludc.org
lgelernt@aclu.org
bkaufman@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
nzafar@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
- and -
Deepa Alagesan, Esq.
Kimberly Grano, Esq.
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT
One Battery Park Plaza, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (516) 838-7044
E-mail: dalagesan@refugeerights.org
kgrano@refugeerights.org
- and -
Baher Azmy, Esq.
Shayana D. Kadidal, Esq.
J. Wells Dixon, Esq.
Jessica Myers Vosburgh, Esq.
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway, Floor 7
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 614-6427
E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org
shanek@ccrjustice.org
wdixon@ccrjustice.org
jvosburgh@ccrjustice.org
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Handelsman Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HANDELSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-22461 (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2025) is a class action complaint
for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in negligently and/or willfully using prerecorded messages to call
Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, without
Plaintiff's express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, thereby
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
prerecorded calls without the requisite express written consent,
asserts the suit.
The Defendant owns and/or operates Fort Lauderdale Behavioral
Health Center in Oakland Park, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
UNIVERSAL TEA: Bodily Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christy Bodily, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL TEA COMPANY, INC., Case
No. CVCS25-0000524 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Sutter, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on May 30, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01521-DAD-SCR.
The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a putative nationwide
class of consumers for violations of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; California's Unfair Competition Law; and breach of
implied warranties.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rohit A. Sabnis, Esq.
KELLER & HECKMAN LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1420
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 948-2800
Fax: (415) 948-2808
Email: sabnis@khlaw.com
US BANK TRUST: Bates Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alice M. Bates, on her behalf and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE OF
CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2021-RP5, on its own behalf and on
behalf of similarly situated persons, and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00415-DJN (E.D. Va., June 2, 2025), is brought
claiming relate to the unfair, deceptive, or otherwise wrongful
conduct of Nationstar on behalf of CMLT 2021-RP5 and others
similarly situated to it through its improper collection practices
while servicing federally related mortgage loans.
Public records reveal that Nationstar has a pattern or practice of
violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").
Nationstar's pattern or practice of violating RESPA also includes
(but is not limited to) specific conduct in which Nationstar fails
to correct errors known to it to provide accurate payoff statements
to borrowers and/or failing to take timely action to provide
refunds to borrowers, including Bates, who paid it sums in excess
of the actual final balance owed on their loans for which it
serviced on behalf of CMLT 2021-RP5 and other members of the
Defendant Class.
Because Nationstar and CMLT 2021-RP5 (and other owners or investors
of loans serviced by Nationstar) have no right to fail to provide
accurate payoff statements within seven business days of a borrower
request and/or to impose and collect sums in excess of the actual
balance owed under the terms of the mortgage loans amount to
impermissible pre-payment penalties. While such sums may appear
small in the individual situation, in the aggregate, they amount to
a substantial profit center for Nationstar and CMLT 2021-RP5 and
other investors and owners of residential mortgage loans serviced
by Nationstar. Such excess sums are also paid for by consumers who
do not assume they are dealing with a scoundrel, which gives
Nationstar and its clients for who it collects an unlawful
competitive advantage over honest mortgage services who choose not
to skirt or violate the laws governing the duty to collect at
payoff only those sums actually due from the borrower.
Nationstar imposed upon and/or collected sums at the time Bates and
others made their final payments to satisfy (i.e. payoff) their
final mortgage balances, which were more than what was due under
the terms of their contracts. Bates brings this class action
lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
putative class members to recover these excess sums (and also
pre-judgment interest) and to recover statutory damages from
Nationstar for its pattern or practice of violating RESPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a homeowner and resident of the City of Richmond
of the real property commonly.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC is also a licensed Virginia mortgage
lender.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dale W. Pittman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
112-A West Tabb Street
Petersburg, VA 23803
Phone: (804) 861-6000
Fax: (804) 861-3368
Email: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com
- and -
Phillip Robinson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, LLC
1220 Blair Mill Road, Suite 1105
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301-448-1304
Email: phillip@marylandconsumer.com
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Hall Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Justice, et al. The case is styled as Joshua Hall,
Eric Heilner, Darrell Jesse Rivera, Johnny Quinones, Joseph Bryan
Dantzler-Harris, Aaron Cunagin, Joey Hoffman, Skylar Vandevander,
on behalf of ourselves and all other similarly situated v. United
States Department of Justice, Attorney General of the United
States, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Exposives,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00982-JPW-EW (M.D. Pa., June 2, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) --
https://www.justice.gov/ -- is a federal executive department
responsible for enforcing federal laws and administering justice in
the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
VAGARO INC: Schwartz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagia Schwartz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VAGARO, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV121174 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., April 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all
wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.
The Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and
practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked,
including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide
employees with timely and duty free meal periods in compliance with
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain
accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing
to pay an additional hour's pay at the regular rate of pay for each
workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and
permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in
compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and
failing to pay an additional hour's pay at the employee's regular
rate of pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred;
Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses
incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages,
overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium
wages due within the time period specified by California law when
employment terminates; Failing to maintain accurate records of the
hours that employees worked; and Failing to provide employees with
accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information
required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
Technical Support employee from January 2021 to March 2025.
The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Alameda County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung L. Yang, Esq.
Tiffany Hyun, Esq.
Jessica M. Abreu, Esq.
THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC
355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 985-1150
Facsimile: (213) 985-2155
Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com
tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com
Jessica.abreu@thesentinelfirm.com
VIAGOGO INC: Berlinger et al. Sue Over Deceptive Ticket Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERLINGER, DANNY COLLINS, and DAVID STOCKTON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIAGOGO
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04380 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025)
accuses the Defendant of using a bait-and-switch purchase flow to
lure consumers into purchasing tickets for concerts, sporting
events, and other live entertainment through its website,
http://www.viagogo.com.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant intentionally uses a
deceptive initial low price and hides its fees at the end of the
purchase flow instead of presenting the fees to consumers at the
outset of the transaction. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now
challenge this unlawful conduct and assert claims for violations of
the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False
Advertising Law, the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Viagogo Inc. owns and operates the
online ticket exchange website, which markets and sells tickets for
sports, concerts, theater, and other live entertainment events.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
Robin P. Bleiweis, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
rbleiweis@tzlegal.com
- and -
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
VINCERO INC: Cole Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Vincero, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05797 (N.D.
Ill., May 23, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The case arises out of Vincero's policy and practice of denying the
blind access to the goods and services offered by the website. Due
to Vincero's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the
Defendant's website, blind individuals have been and are being
denied equal access to the numerous goods, services and benefits
offered to the public through its website.
Headquartered in San Diego, CA, Vincero, Inc. owns and operates the
website, Vincerocollective.com, which offers handcrafted
timepieces, chronographs, custom-designed pieces, necklaces,
bracelets and eyewear for sale. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: achan@ealg.law
WASTE MANAGEMENT: FCRA Class Complaint Dismissed Without Leave
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dena Coggins of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted Waste Management Inc., et
al.'s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case
captioned as BELTRAN, Plaintiff, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00279-DC-CSK (E.D. Cal.) without leave
to amend. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c), for failure to state a
claim for relief.
This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Beltran
against Waste Management Inc., Waste Management National Services,
Inc., and USA Waste of California, Inc. on February 14, 2023,
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The
court previously granted motions for judgment on the pleadings with
leave to amend on May 23, 2023, and January 24, 2024, for failure
to establish Article III standing. The plaintiff filed the
operative second amended complaint on February 12, 2024. Upon
careful examination, the court reviewed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings filed by the defendants on February 27, 2024.
Plaintiff is a job applicant who received a background check
disclosure form from the defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he read
and relied on the form, which stated that the defendants "may order
a consumer report on you from a consumer reporting agency ('CRA')
with your application for employment." Plaintiff alleges that the
defendants' disclosure form violated FCRA Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)
because it included contact information for two CRAs, Cisive in New
York and Foley Carrier Services in Connecticut, rendering it
confusing and noncompliant with FCRA's standalone disclosure
requirement. Plaintiff further alleges the form was not clear and
conspicuous due to the absence of capital letters, boldface font,
and the inclusion of an acknowledgment of receipt. Plaintiff
alleges that he would not have signed the form or agreed to the
procurement of a consumer report if the disclosure form had
complied with FCRA.
Characterizing the complaint as deficient, the defendants moved to
dismiss the plaintiff's FCRA claim. The defendants argued that the
plaintiff lacks Article III standing because he failed to allege a
concrete injury from the disclosure form. The defendants further
argued that, even if standing existed, the plaintiff failed to
plausibly allege a willful violation of FCRA, as required under
Section 1681b(b)(2)(A). The defendants relied on the Ninth
Circuit’s decision in Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., asserting that
including CRA contact information did not violate FCRA’s
standalone disclosure requirement.
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint and accepted
all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construes them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Upon careful
examination, the court found that the plaintiff sufficiently
alleged standing regarding the inclusion of two CRAs' contact
information, as he claimed confusion and stated he would not have
signed the form if it complied with FCRA. However, the court
concluded that the plaintiff failed to allege injury from the lack
of capital letters, boldface font, or the acknowledgment of
receipt, as he did not specify how these caused confusion.
The court also concluded that the plaintiff's allegation that the
inclusion of two CRAs' contact information violated FCRA was
unsupported. Citing Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., the court noted
that CRA contact information is not extraneous and does not violate
FCRA's standalone disclosure requirement. The plaintiff's reliance
on the rulings in Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 503 (9th Cir.
2017), and Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d
1169, 1176–77 (9th Cir. 2019), was misplaced, as those cases
addressed different types of extraneous information. Accordingly,
the defendants' disclosure complied with FCRA.
According to the court, even if the inclusion of two CRAs' contact
information constituted an FCRA violation, the plaintiff failed to
allege a willful violation. The court found that a willful
violation requires a knowing or reckless act, but the defendants'
actions were not objectively unreasonable under Walker. The
plaintiff provided no authority suggesting that listing two CRAs
was extraneous or noncompliant. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim
for a willful FCRA violation is deficiently pled.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ybPZR from PacerMonitor.com.
WEBER MARKING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Janisse Says
----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS JANISSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WEBER MARKING SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a WEBER PACKAGING
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06032 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2025)
arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive
data.
The Defendant designs, manufactures, and supplies
"pressure-sensitive labels, labeling systems and ink jet systems"
at its facilities in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Australia, Europe,
and Asia.
As such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information (PII) about its current and former
employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach.
According to the Defendant's Breach Notice, cybercriminals gained
access to Defendant’s network between October 7 and October 8,
2024.
Thus, for an entire two days cybercriminals had unfettered access
to Defendant's systems and the files stored therein. In other
words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former
employees' PII.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice, a sample of which is attached as Exhibit A. He brings this
class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by
Defendant's misconduct.
The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot
be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former
employees’ private information was exactly that—private. Not
anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and
unsecure.
The Defendant touts itself as "an international leader in producing
labeling and coding solutions." The Defendant has manufacturing,
sales, and service facilities in the United States, Canada, Mexico,
Europe, Australia, and Asia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
WESTERN FLYER: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CORY JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. WESTERN FLYER EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00583-R (W.D.
Okla., May 30, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated drivers for the seeking
unpaid wages, reimbursement for any/all prohibited deductions,
liquidated damages, civil penalties as appropriate, appropriate
ancillary relief, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and all other relief.
The Plaintiff leased a tractor and/or trailer from Defendant and
worked for the company as a truck driver.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant subjected him and certain
other drivers to practices and/or policies that are illegal and
caused them to suffer damages as a result.
The Defendant is a trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brook S. Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brook@fairworklaw.com
WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Hudgins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DENISHA HUDGINS and MARION BOVAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WINDSTREAM SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
4:25-cv-00523-JM (E.D. Ark., May 29, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.
Ms. Hudgins was employed by Defendant as a remote Inside Account
Executive between May 2023 and March 2024.
Ms. Bovan was employed by Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative from Nov. 4, 2014, to May 31, 2024.
The putative Collective members were or are employed by Defendant
in the United States as hourly employees during the past three
years.
The Defendant operates a call center business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
1 Towne Sq., 17fh Floor
Southfield, MH 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: mtumer@sommerspc.com
pkennedy@sommerspc.com
WORKSTEPS INC: Court Orders Defendant to Pay Fees in Remand Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Pamela A. Barker of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted Plaintiff Herman Ragland's Motion
to Remand and Motion for Attorney's Fees in the case captioned as
HERMAN RAGLAND, v. WORKSTEPS, INC., in Case No. 1:25-cv-0075-PAB
(N.D. Ohio). The case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, from which it was removed.
This case concerns WorkSTEPS Inc.'s alleged sale of continuous
positive airway pressure machines, equipment, and monitoring
devices to Ragland and a similarly situated class of consumers
without disclosing two finance charges, an administrative fee of
$110 and an application fee of $46.
On December 21, 2023, Ragland filed a Complaint on behalf of
himself in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, asserting
five counts against WorkSTEPS Inc., alleging that WorkSTEPS Inc.'s
sale of a CPAP device to Ragland violated the federal
Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1640 et seq.; the
Ohio Retail Instalment Sales Act (ORISA), Ohio Rev. Code Section
1317.01 et seq.; and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
("OCSPA") Ohio Rev. Code Section 1345.01 et seq.
In discovery, Ragland allegedly learned that WorkSTEPS Inc. charges
the same $110 administrative fee and $46 application fee only to
consumers who finance their medical devices but not to consumers
who pay for the CPAP devices as a lump sum. On December 16, 2024,
Ragland filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint in the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to Ohio R. Civ. P.
23, asserting four counts against WorkSTEPS Inc. for violations of
TILA, ORISA, and OCSPA, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
consumers. Unlike in the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint
requests "all relief pursuant to TILA, 15 USC 1640, et seq.
including 1% of the net worth of WorkSTEPS Inc. up to $1,000,000."
On February 14, 2025, Ragland filed Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
and Motion for Attorney's Fees. Ragland argues that because
WorkSTEPS Inc. failed to file a notice of removal within 30 days
after Ragland filed the Complaint asserting the federal TILA claim
on December 21, 2023, WorkSTEPS Inc. missed its window to remove
the case to this Court. In Plaintiff's Reply, Ragland reiterates
that "WorkSTEPS Inc. did not remove this case based on federal law
when it had the right to do so" because the Complaint contained a
federal claim under TILA. Ragland requests that the court retain
jurisdiction to adjudicate his motion for attorney fees pursuant to
Section 1447(c).
On January 15, 2025, WorkSTEPS Inc. filed a Notice of Removal in
this Court, contending that "this Court has original subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)." Defendant's
Notice purports to be timely because WorkSTEPS Inc. filed it within
30 days after Ragland filed his Amended Complaint on December 16,
2024, thereby invoking 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) as the basis
for its removal.
On February 28, 2025, WorkSTEPS Inc. filed a Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion. In Defendant's Opposition, WorkSTEPS Inc. does
not respond to Ragland's timeliness argument. Rather, WorkSTEPS
Inc.'s sole argument in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion is that
TILA's statutory scheme permits a damage award exclusive to class
actions under 15 U.S.C. Section 1640(a)(2)(B) that the Court could
not have considered in an individual action asserting a TILA
claim.
WorkSTEPS Inc. responded to Ragland's request for costs and
attorney's fees, stating: "Finally, in the event the Court grants
the Motion, attorney fees are not warranted because this is a
matter of first impression and WorkSTEPS had a good faith basis to
seek removal to this Court."
Upon careful examination of the removal timing issue, the Court
agreed with Ragland that 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1) applies, and
that WorkSTEPS Inc. failed to file a timely removal notice within
the 30-day removal period as set forth therein. WorkSTEPS Inc.
failed to timely remove because Ragland filed the Complaint on
December 21, 2023, and according to the state court docket, Ragland
served WorkSTEPS Inc. with the Complaint on January 4, 2024.
According to the Court, the Complaint was "removable" under Section
1446(b)(1) on January 4, 2024, because on that day, the Complaint
contained a federal claim under TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1640. The
presence of the federal TILA claim in the original Complaint
allowed WorkSTEPS Inc. to remove the case under Section 1441(a) by
invoking this Court's federal-question jurisdiction. Therefore,
given that the case was removable on January 4, 2024, WorkSTEPS
Inc. had 30 days, or until February 5, 2024, to remove the case to
federal court pursuant to Section 1446(b)(1), but it did not do
so.
The Court found that the supplemental removal period under Section
1446(b)(3) is only triggered when an initially non-removable case
later becomes removable, but not when an initially removable case
later becomes removable on a different basis for federal
jurisdiction. The plain text of Section 1446(b)(3) opens up a
removal window only "if the case stated by the initial pleading is
not removable."
The Court added even if this Court accepted WorkSTEPS Inc.'s novel
theory that a class asserting TILA claims satisfies Section
1332(a)'s jurisdictional amount, the untimeliness of WorkSTEPS
Inc.'s removal on January 15, 2025 -- nearly a year after the case
was removable based on federal-question jurisdiction -- requires
the Court to remand the case.
With regard to attorney's fees, the Court concluded that WorkSTEPS
Inc. lacked an objectively reasonable basis to remove the case to
this court. Two key facts pertaining to WorkSTEPS Inc.'s
procedurally defective removal show why WorkSTEPS Inc.'s removal
was "objectively unreasonable." First, after Ragland repeated its
argument in Plaintiff's Motion, WorkSTEPS Inc. did not even attempt
to rebut it. WorkSTEPS Inc. failed to cite any authorities that its
removal was timely or make any attempt at a response to Ragland's
timeliness argument.
Second, a plain reading of Section 1446(b) reveals that Section
1446(b)(3) only opens the supplemental removal period when the
"case stated by the initial pleading is not removable," but
Ragland's TILA claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1640 -- a federal
statute -- objectively made the case removable "from the outset."
WorkSTEPS Inc.'s failure to engage with Ragland's concerns of
timeliness reveals not only an unwillingness to apply "rudimentary
procedural concepts" but it also shows that WorkSTEPS Inc.
disregarded straightforward principles of logical reasoning.
The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the costs, and actual
expenses, including attorney's fees that Plaintiff incurred as a
result of removal. The Court retained limited jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) solely for the purpose of determining
the appropriate amount of fees to award to Plaintiff.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qm6pWh
YADAV ENTERPRISES: Haddad Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yadav Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Desiree Haddad, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yadav Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0007692 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., June 2, 2025).
The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Yadav Enterprises, Inc. is a restaurant franchisee company with 343
restaurants covering six brands; Jack in the Box, Denny's, El Pollo
Loco, Corner Bakery Cafe, Sizzler and TGI Friday's.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
YOKE GLOBAL INC: Newell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yoke Global Inc. The
case is styled as Jourey Newell, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Yoke Global
Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03049-TWT (N.D. Ga., June 2, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
YOKE -- http://yoketeam.com/-- is an online application for
student-athletes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Fax: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq.
CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC
245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7
Atlanta, GA 30307
Phone: (404) 955-7732
Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com
ZIER INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Emily Rodriguez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zier, Inc., Case
No. 25STCV09994, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 13, 2025.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-04315-CV-MBK to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Allen Ott, Esq.
LOEB AND LOEB LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-2000
Facsimile: (310) 282-2200
E-mail: cott@loeb.com
ZUFFA LLC: Faces Cirkunovs Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mikhail Cirkunovs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Company, LLC f/k/a
Zuffa Parent LLC (d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC) and
Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00914
(D. Nev., May 23, 2025) seeks treble damages and injunctive relief
for Defendants' violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The case arises out of Defendants' overarching anticompetitive
scheme to maintain and enhance the UFC's (a) monopoly power in the
market for promotion of live Professional Mixed Martial Arts
Fighter bouts, and (b) monopsony power in the market for
Professional MMA Fighter services. Moreover, the UFC has used the
ill-gotten monopoly and monopsony power it has obtained and
maintained through the said scheme to artificially suppress
compensation for UFC Fighters in the Class to below competitive
levels, the suit says.
Headquartered in Las Angeles, NV, Zuffa, LLC promotes live
Professional MMA bouts in the U.S. and elsewhere, under the trade
names of the Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Gayan. Esq.
CLAGGET & SYKES
4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Telephone: (702) 333-7777
Facsimile: (702) 655-3763
E-mail: mike@claggettlaw.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
mdellangelo@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
- and -
Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
Kyla Gibboney, Esq.
Robert C. Maysey, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 906-0684
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: jdavis@bm.net
kgibboney@bm.net
rmaysey@bm.net
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
Chris Young, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
Daniel H. Silverman, Esq.
Daniel Gifford, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East
Tower Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com
dgifford@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 596-4001
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
- and -
Kyle Pozan, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
1165 N. Clark Street, Ste. 700
Chicago, IL 60610
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: ckjpozan@rlocklaw.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $4.3MM Net Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $4,300,000 and $7,900,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 38 years from March 31, 2025, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Columbus McKinnon states, "The Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles approximates $6,009,000.
The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance
recoveries of $6,995,000 as a liability in the consolidated
financial statements as of March 31, 2025. The recorded liability
does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal
legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty
in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to
resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of
factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based
settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to
resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this
amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of
approximately $2,600,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment
of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management
believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not
have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or
its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities
recorded could be material to earnings in a future period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZkodwS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessy Held 15% Responsible in $18MM Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keani Christian, writing for jdsupra.com, reports that a Florida
jury on April 23 handed down an $18 million verdict in aperitoneal
mesothelioma case brought by the law firm of Maune Raichle Hartley
French & Mudd, LLC.
Plaintiff Denise Guth Cook spent time in her father's shop as a
child as her father and brothers were career mechanics. Plaintiff
alleged her father and brother used Ammco brake grinders that
released asbestos-containing brake dust into the air, which also
landed onto the ground and their clothes. Plaintiff further alleged
that she inhaled this dust as she helped clean her relatives'
clothes after their shifts.
The alleged exposure primarily occurred between 1970 and 1979.
Plaintiff sued Hennessy Industries, an entity that purchased Ammco
after the alleged exposure period. Plaintiff alleged Hennessy/Ammco
were strictly liable for her diagnosis. Plaintiff also claimed the
defendant negligently failed to adequately warn individuals about
the asbestos exposure people could experience when using the
grinder.
At the time of trial, only Ammco remained as a defendant. Some of
the original defendants and other non-party entities were listed on
the verdict form as defendants. The jury returned a defense verdict
on the strict liability claim. However, the jury also concluded
that Hennessy was negligent.
The jury allocated 15-percent liability to Hennessy for Ms. Cook's
illness. While the overall jury award was $18 million, the
liability apportionment reduced the award to $2.7 million.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***